Main Menu

Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY (Part 2)

Kerchner v. Obama

Kerchner v. Obama

Continued from Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY. [This article has been updated 5/10/09 to reflect additional research.]

Once again we take up the painful task of reading the lawsuit that reads like a smear campaign, Kerchner v. Obama et al. The following sections are numbered per Apuzzo’s second (longer) amended complaint.

Points 71-74 state the well-accepted fact that Barack Obama’s father was not a United States Citizen. President Obama has himself acknowledged this on his own web site.

75. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” ENDNOTE 14.

14. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to General George Washington. The letter specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country. Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings. Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others. The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.

Point 75 would seem false on the face of it, since Article II has no “definition” of natural born citizen, nor has the Supreme Court or legislation specifically defined it. But let’s examine the footnote. The footnote is a mixture of fact and unsupported assertions about who thought and who knew what.

While the phrase “The Law of Nations” appears in the Constitution, it is totally silly to assert that this is a reference to a partial title of a book whose real title is in French. Apuzzo provides no support for his fantastic assertion that “[The Law of Nations is] well known throughout the colonies among the general population”], given the rate of literacy in the population, the costliness of books, etc. it seems unlikely.

Footnote 14 says:

But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.

1. There is no evidence of how the phrase “natural born citizen” was added to the Constitution at the behest of Jay, although it is plausible. We do not know that Washington agreed and had the clause added. The natural born citizen clause appeared late in the Convention’s work. Attributing the phrase to Vattel is of course completely spurious, since the English translation available at the time the Constitution was written does not include the phrase (in place of “natural born citizen” it has the untranslated word from the French “indegenes”).

2. You said “future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs” but the Jay letter only refers to Commander in Chief. At that time the two offices were not necessarily tied together. Jay didn’t know; he wasn’t at the constitutional convention and their deliberations were kept secret.

3. You said “Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), but again the term was not in de Vattel when it was translated from French to English in 1759 nor in the first American edition in 1787. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in de Vattel translations until a dozen years after the Constitution was written. The leading legal treatise of the time was Blackstone’s Commentaries, not The Law of Nations.

4. Would you assert that the Massachusetts Acts from 1776-1790 and those of New York (1770) also get their usage from de Vattel? They seem to infer rather strongly that natural born citizenship is equivalent to birth location.

The fact of the matter is that the First Congress passed an immigration law (1790) which allowed the children of two citizens overseas to be “natural born citizens”, an act which would be unnecessary if de Vattel’s book was what defined citizenship since in his view, and according his philosophical treatise The Law of Nations, one citizenship status always f0llows one’s father.

In subsequent court cases (except for the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford) original intent citizenship has been defined according to the common law in effect at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and that was exclusively one of place of birth and NOT de Vattel’s racist-leaning xenophobic arguments in The Law of Nations. This was particularly argued by the Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) and by the US Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Apuzzo’s argument has already been rejected by the Supreme Court in Wong. He’s trying to re-try Wong in the “court of public opinion“.

One must also point out that President Chester A. Arthur was also born of a British citizen father too.

See also:

Until late last year when the disinformation campaign started, Americans did and always have overwhelmingly understood that to be president, one has to be born in the United States, without regard for who one’s parents are, because this is all it takes to be a citizen and “natural born citizen” means nothing more or less that “citizen at birth”. Even de Vattel understood it that way. The courts and Congress understand it that way. I daresay Apuzzo understands it that way too.

Next we pick up in the fictional narrative of Barack Obama’s life with an alleged adoption by his step father, Indonesian national, Lolo Soetoro.

76. Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an
Indonesian citizen, and taken to Indonesia. It is likely that Obama lost whatever
citizenship he had and became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption.

No evidence has ever been presented of such an adoption. However, even if it had happened both US and Indonesian law would have prevented any change in Obama’s citizenship status. For more information see Hollister v. Indonesian Citizenship Law.

77. There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he
was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in that nation’s schools. His school records indicate his citizenship as Indonesian.

The school record (assuming it is genuine) notwithstanding, both US and Indonesian law would have prevented any change in Obama’s citizenship status. For more information see Hollister v. Indonesian Citizenship Law. The comment that only Indonesian citizens were allowed in the nation’s schools is a silly made up factoid.

78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But
such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

It is a well-documented fact that the travel ban to Pakistan is a myth. For documentation see Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport (updated).

Points 79-83 argue that Barack Obama may be “an illegal alien”; however this argument relies on Barack Obama not being born in Hawaii which is preposterous given a birth certificate, a newspaper birth announcement and confirmation by Hawaiian Health Department Officials.

I think this ends the part of the suit dealing with the quo warranto claim and the part connected with Obama citizenship denial and conspiracy theories. One notes also that private citizens have no right to bring quo warranto claims in federal court.

Over 200 more points remain and my sympathy goes out to the poor law clerk and judge in New Jersey who is going have to deal with this stuff. Given the number of lies in the pleading, I suggest a nice fat Rule 11 sanction.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

140 Responses to Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY (Part 2)

  1. avatar
    Bob February 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    The quo warranto provisions are particularly assuming. It is obvious Apuzzo lifted the idea from Berg (who has not made good on his threat to file a quo warranto action).

    It is obvious neither of them have done any significant research on federal quo warranto proceedings. If they had, they would know that only the federal government (or its designee) may seek a writ of quo warranto. It has never been available to citizens, so there’s no way to assert a Ninth (or Tenth) Amendment right to it.

  2. avatar
    Bob Weber February 21, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

    Dr. C: You are absolutely correct that the birfer arguments are crap but I must disagree with characterizing de Vattel’s argument for ius sanguinis as “racist-leaning”. The heading for the section quoted by the birfers (why do they always omit the heading?)is “regarding the laws of our nation”, meaning Switzerland. Remember that historically Switzerland has been a small republic precariously defending its independence from large nations on its borders. The Swiss nation was born in a war of independence from the Hapsburgs, and Switzerland is a confederation of different linguistic communities. Ius sanguinis, whether or not you think it’s necessary or effective, was intended for the purpose of protecting themselves from foreign influence, not out of any kind of racial thinking.

  3. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 21, 2009 at 11:35 pm #

    Bob, I think you are right to look at the historical reasons behind the jus sanguinis vs. jus soli approach to citizenship. The UK is an island nation with a long history of imperialism — so in a sense their view could be taken as a different kind of “racism” – one fostered by their view that it was their destiny to dominate the world, and focused more on the status of its people being “subjects” than “citizens”.

    The US also has a history of expansionism (and racism). I think its fair to assume that, to the founding fathers, “born on US soil” was clearly sufficient, but that they acted on the assumption that “natural born Citizen” meant “white male born on US soil”.

    But we have to read that clause in the context of the 14th and 19th amendments…. neither which added any requirement concerning parental citizenship to the mix. To the contrary, the case law subsequent to the 14th amendment has made it quite clear that the status of parents of US-born children is irrelevant.

  4. avatar
    Bob Weber February 22, 2009 at 12:27 am #

    Expellarmus: (This is pretty much off-topic, BTW) There’s a lot to what you say, except I don’t think that English ius soli had anything to do originally with any kind of racialist or nationalist thinking. It was more royalist, a perspective which is mostly foreign to us today. A great many of English kings haven’t been English. Richard the Lionhearted was little-concerned with England and could barely speak English – he was more concerned with the territories he held in France as a duke, and he’s actually buried in France. The English wars with France until the 16th century were more about wars between monarchs than national wars, though they provided the seed that led to nationalist sentiments later.

  5. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 22, 2009 at 1:32 am #

    My Dear Dr. Conspiracy:

    Let us stay “on message” (I am sure you know how to do that) rather than argue the little stuff the need for which is created only because Mr. Obama refuses to meet HIS burden of proof to provide “conclusive” (putting an end to debate or question) evidence that he was born in the United States. The first issue can be resolved rather simply with any future cases raising the same issue being precluded from being filed. Mr. Obama produces “conclusive” proof he was born in the United States and there is no need for you to defend him on this issue. Just think of all the hours of work that you will save by not having to attack every little detail that exists on the internet against Mr. Obama regarding whether he was born in the United States. Would not that make you so happy, knowing that the Obama place-of-birth issue is quieted and dead?

    On the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” so you do not like Vattel. Then I suggest that you study a little more what the common law that existed at the time of the writing of Article II of the Constitution said about what is a “natural born Citizen.”

    On those Rule 11 sanctions, I can see Mr. Obama being slapped with them if he pleads that he was born in Hawaii if he was not.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  6. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 22, 2009 at 2:49 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    Barack Obama has no “burden” whatsoever. He was sworn in as President on January 20th, 2009. The US Constitution provides only one mechanism to remove a sitting President. The phrase “the sole power” is unequivocal,and leave no possible other interpretation.

    You cannot impose a burden on Obama or anyone else by filing unfounded lawsuits upon nonexistent causes of action, in courts without jurisdiction, for claims that you have no standing to bring.

    Since you have a law degree and are a member of the bar, you really should know this.

  7. avatar
    Beckwith February 22, 2009 at 4:05 am #

    “Point 75 would seem false on the face of it, since Article II has no “definition” of natural born citizen, nor has any court or legislation specifically defined it.”

    This statement is not true. The Surpreme Court has defined “natural born citizen” at least twice.

    In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.

    In Perkins v. Elg, the Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

    Further, in Perkins v. Elg, the court describes three classes of citizenship; natural born citizen, citizen and native born citizen.

    It’s all explained here: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

  8. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 22, 2009 at 5:33 am #

    Geez, Beckwith, you sound like a person who has never actually read the cases you cite.

    You are right that Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg those cases provide a definition of “natural born citizen”, but you’ve got the holding backward.

    The holding of Minor v. Happersett was superceded by the 19th amendment, by the way… so no person with the slightest understanding of law would ever cite to it or its progeny. It would be like relying on the reasoning of cases that rely on Dred Scott.

  9. avatar
    brygenon February 22, 2009 at 6:17 am #

    President Obama cannot end these conspiracy theories, any more than Bush could have ordered an investigation that would satisfy the 9/11-was-an-inside-job kooks, or NASA could stop the man-never-walked-on-the-Moon lunacy.

    Questions do not remain open simply because you refuse to face the answers.

    Anyone who actually wanted to know where President Obama was born, knows by now. Anyone who doubts the law on the matter can note how these suits fare in court, and who it was that swore Obama into office (twice!).

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2009 at 8:14 am #

    Bob, in my mind the concept of “protecting themselves from foreign influence” is a racist-leaning concept. However, perhaps a better word is “xenophobic” and I’ll change it to that. Since I consider the concept or race as an essentially arbitrary classification by which to label the “other”, I understand racism and xenophobia to be about the same thing.

    Thanks for pointing out the difficulty in my choice of words.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2009 at 9:04 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    As you probably know, there are three factions involved in these lawsuits: those who are quite certain that being born in the United States is sufficient to be a natural born citizen, but Obama is not born in the United States; those who believe that Obama is almost certainly born in the United States but the citizenship of his father precludes him being a natural born citizen; and those, represented by Kerchner v. Obama who will take either reason Obama is not a natural born citizen. (And there is also the adoption/Indonesian angle thrown in to muddy my classifications.)

    When I take on the arguments of any faction, I have to keep in mind these three audiences, and this is the reason that I waste my time attacking every little detail on the Internet. I spent quite a bit of time digging through Internet archives looking for the genesis of the “born in Africa” story. As part of that digging I had the chance to see what people were saying right before the COLB was published and then afterwards. The demands for documentation of Obama’s birth were the same before the COLB was released as they are today. This leads me to the conclusion that the release of the vault record is ultimately of no consequence in quieting conspiracy theory thinking about where Obama was born. Indeed Obama opponents are already preparing for this possibility by injecting the idea of “family fraud” which cannot be ruled out, no matter what the documentation.

    I should point out that it is beyond silly that an poor 18-year-old college student, about to give birth to a baby, should hop on a plane long enough to go Africa, have her husband introduce her to his OTHER WIFE AND CHILDREN, give birth, and whiz back to the USA to start a false documentation trail of Barack’s birth in Hawaii. If someone is going to believe a crazy tale like that, they will believe anything.

    As for the “little stuff”, it bothers me a great deal for anyone to allege demonstrable false things in a lawsuit (the easiest of these is the travel ban to Pakistan). It is your argument that the accumulation of all these “little things” is what trumps the prima facie evidence of the COLB. So when you talk about “burden of proof”, that is only in the context of a trial in which you have prevailed on all those “little things”. Without those little things (all false, rumor or inadmissible), there is no burden of proof on Obama.

    What I know of British Common Law (since I never went to law school and never studied Blackstone) relies largely from reading the US Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. If you think that Wong was wrongly decided (and perhaps that Dred Scott v Sanford is the model we should follow) please say so and we can continue the discussion on that basis.

    You can see the linked articles above. They outline the case I will make on natural born citizen.

    As for Rule 11, your posting here I think gives one a presumption that you have read the two articles regarding Kercher here. If you should file a third amended complaint I sincerely hope that it will not contain those demonstrably false points I have pointed out (as Berg’s Second Complaint in the original Berg v. Obama dropped the Canadian birth certificate allegation after it was pointed out that the document was signed by Dudley Do Right).

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    No Perkin v. Elg doesn’t state NBC requirements it just points out that Elg, who in the facts of the case one observes has these requirements, has citizen parents. Same for Wong.

  13. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 22, 2009 at 9:19 am #

    Both Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg use the phrase “natural born citizen” interchangeably with “native born” – which tends to negate any argument that it has a separate and distinct meaning, based on interpretation of the language used.

    It is dicta as applied to the NBC clause itself –but the fact remains that the language “natural born citizen” is used in both cases when discussing the citizenship status of the individuals before them.

  14. avatar
    richCares February 22, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    Mr. Appuzzo
    “Would not that make you so happy, knowing that the Obama place-of-birth issue is quieted and dead? ”

    this issue was never alive, only Birthers consider it an issue, I’m from Hawaii and we all know where Obama was born. And yes I voted for that Repulican Governor that you think is covering up for Obama.

    Hope you enjoy losing, because that’s what’s ahead of you!

  15. avatar
    richCares February 22, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    “Mr. Obama refuses to meet HIS burden”
    In 2007, Obama requested his BC from Hawaii to meet DNC Campaign requirements, later he posted it on his web site. My daughter was born in Hawaii in 1965 and her BC resembles Obama’s exactly. Hawaii only issues COLB and that is easy to confirm, call the Hawaii dept of Health, they won’t give info on an individual but they will tell what they send. Birthers never call to verify this because it would destroy their beliefs, are you of the same vein.
    Are you aware that there are no Birhters in Hawaii.

    Link to certification, so you can add signers and Notary in your suit, includes both Obama & McCain, you can nail the notary for notarizing false documents
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

    I wonder why you are doing is as I’m sure you know you will fail, is it to raise funds as Orly does, is it you are blinded by hate of Obama, what is it?

  16. avatar
    vma224 February 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    just read your amended complaint, way too much false info there to make muster, are you after rule 11, just what is your point in all this, do you hate Obama that much?

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2009 at 11:13 pm #

    We have a different opinion on this point. Hawaiian law states that one can obtain a copy of any part or any information from a Certificate. It may be difficult to get it, but ultimately the state would have to cough it up.

    §338-13 Certified copies

  18. avatar
    myson February 23, 2009 at 4:53 am #

    Apparently Obama met the requirement to majority of the electorate so the ‘burden’ shifts to you the accusser !
    Go prove your case to Congress so impeachment proceedings can start.
    No proof no impeachment !! its that simple

  19. avatar
    tes February 23, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.

    Your are correct that Gray quoted from Minor v. Happersett, but your implication is incorrect. The quoted excerpt was as follows:
    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 88 U.S. 167″

    In other words, Happersett was quoted to support the Court’s resort to common law to aid in the construction of the NBC clause — not for its holding as to the actual meaning of the NBC clause. Moreover, even in Happersett, the Court recognized the validity of the position that a person could be a natural born citizen if born in the US, regardless of parents. It merely held, rightly or wrongly, that that was still an open issue and expressly declined to decide the issue.

    Further, in Perkins v. Elg, the court describes three classes of citizenship; natural born citizen, citizen and native born citizen.

    Wrong. The court describes one type of citizen – citzen by birth. It uses three different terms to describe the same thing (as multiple courts before and after have done): citizen, native-born citizen, and natural born citizen. If the court were describing three classes of citizens, it would have discussed the differences between the three classes. Instead, it used different words to descrbie the same concept:

    “First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States.”

    “As at birth she became a citizen of the United States,…”

    “Young Steinkauler is a native-born citizen American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.”

    “The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants …, declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States…”

  20. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    “only the federal government (or its designee) may seek a writ of quo warranto. It has never been available to citizens […]”

    Is this true or false?

    Hitandrun

  21. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm #

    Expelliarmus assumes the founding fathers “acted on the assumption that ‘natural born Citizen’ meant ‘white male born on US soil.’ ”

    I’d change ‘white male’ to ‘free male’. No?

    Hitandrun

  22. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    But Expelliarmus,

    Would an ineligible Obama be a ‘sitting President’?

    Hitandrun

  23. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Doc writes,
    “the release of the vault record is ultimately of no consequence in quieting conspiracy theory about where Obama was born.”

    Perhaps not for the conspiracy mongers, but for most concerned the issue would disappear.

    Doc goes on,
    “Obama opponents are already preparing for this possibility by injecting the idea of ‘family fraud’ which cannot be ruled out, no matter what the documentation.”

    Not so. A properly attested vault document or authentic birth facility registration would settle the matter for most.

    Hitandrun

  24. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    richCares claims “there are no Birhters [sic] in Hawaii.”

    Not a single one?

    Hitandrun

  25. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 23, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Clearly, yes, as the election was made by the Electoral College and the person thereby elected has become president.

    This is, in fact, the core “fail” of the birther lawsuits, aside from any argument of substantive merit whatsoever. A federal district court could agree with every allegation made in a birther lawsuit, but would lack the power to remove the president from office, as the Constitution provides only one mechanism for doing that.

    The Constitution provides that the Electoral College and Congress determine who shall be the president, and that the only way to remove the president is by impeachment. The Constitution does not, and would not, confer that ability upon a single federal judge.

  26. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 23, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    Production of a birth certificate would have zero effect on the Kercher suit here under discussion. The Kercher case includes the new definition of “natural born citizen” invented by the birthers. Hence, the birth certificate could show that Barack Obama was born on the White House lawn on the 4th of July 1961 and delivered by Barry Goldwater, and the claim of this suit and others that he is not a natural born citizen would remain.

  27. avatar
    Obot 1024 February 23, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    “Perhaps not for the conspiracy mongers, but for most concerned the issue would disappear.”

    The overwhelming majority of those “concerned” are conspiracy mongers.

    Obama could release every document asked for by the birfers and maybe a tiny handful would stop believing in the conspiracy.

  28. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    Thank you, AK.

    In the unlikely event Mr Obama were proven foreign-born, I believe the Court could declare him ineligible to serve as President and render void any acts or orders requiring Presidential signature. His entire tenure would thus be illegitimated. Do you agree? Perhaps Mr Biden should co-sign everything until BHO’s birthplace is definitively established.

    Hitandrun

  29. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    richCares writes: “we [in Hawaii] all know where Obama was born.”

    Really?
    Perhaps, richCares could sign for our benefit a sworn affidavit identifying the hospital where Mr Obama was born. Which hospital was it?

    Breath unheld,
    Hitandrun

  30. avatar
    Hitandrun February 23, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    Obot 1024,

    Given the decrepit state of education and journalism in our land, I have little doubt that most citizens are indifferent to or ignorant of any of the Constitutional issues involved. Nonetheless we live out our lives under the protection of that Covenant. I continue to maintain that most of those concerned with the birthplace issue (few as they may be) would be satisfied with a certified vault document attesting to BHO’s likely Hawaiian birth.

    To counter overall public indifference, I’d support an amendment requiring all citizens before being permitted to vote in their first Federal election to (1)pass a standard oral or written test, comparable to that for naturalization candidates, and (2) swear or affirm allegiance to our Constitution in solemn ceremony.

    Hitandrun

  31. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    Would an ineligible Obama be a ’sitting President’?

    The Constitution of the US gives Congress the job of determining eligibility of the President (see Amendment 20).

    Congress determined Obama to be eligible on January 8, 2009. Obama was thereafter inaugurated.

    As noted, if you think there are grounds for disqualification of Obama, the Constitution also sets for that there is one, and only one, procedure to be followed.

    It does not involve filing lawsuits.

  32. avatar
    brygenon February 23, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    “In the unlikely event Mr Obama were proven foreign-born, I believe the Court could declare him ineligible to serve as President […]”

    Proven to whom? If the Tennessee State Legislature were to make a finding of fact that Obama was born in Africa, the result would be lots of jokes about Tennessee.

    Whatever the proof, it has to be judged in the body with jurisdiction on the matter at issue. The Constitution is clear that Congress has the sole power to impeach and remove the President.

  33. avatar
    brygenon February 23, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    Then, Hitandrun, it is *you* that is not respecting the Constitution.

    Hawaii now prints birth certificates upon request from computerized state records. Many other states do likewise, and such certificates are generally accepted to prove the state records.

    U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    I think so. The Congress having certified the election results, and the Obama having taken the oath of office, he is President.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    I searched for “quo warranto” in Supreme Court cases and the only ones I found were appeals from state courts. Granted I haven’t read EVERY Supreme Court case that mentions the phrase, but I read a bunch.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    I presume that birthers will all jump on the NBC bus, should this happen.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    Actually, there one, REV. DR. KAMEL K. K. ROY, who is suing Obama in Hawaii. This maybe difficult reading but try at least column 1 of the first page.

  38. avatar
    Bob February 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Where in the U.S. Constitution is Obama required to name at which hospital he was born?

  39. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 24, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    Why would Obama have to supply a birth certificate showing the correct hospital… and yet no one expected the same of McCain?

    Despite questions being raised about whether McCain was born on or off base, he never publicly released his birth certificate. Another purported birth certificate surfaced and was attached as an exhibit in the lawsuit brought by Hollander — but it shows McCain being born in the city of Colon, 2 miles away from the base and outside of US canal zone jurisdiction.

    Why the double standard?

  40. avatar
    Bob February 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    Here’s but an example:

    “In a sense-in a very important sense-every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers execute the law. But that general interest is not a private but a public interest. Being such, it is to be represented by the Attorney General or the district attorney, who are expected by themselves or those they authorize to institute quo warranto proceedings against usurpers in the same way that they are expected to institute proceedings against any other violator of the law. That general public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such proceedings; for if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.”

    Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 547-548 (1915).

    Note the part about “a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.” Think that might describe the current situation?

  41. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 24, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    It’s the same double standard that will be applied in 2012 to Bobby Jindal. The right will forget that they insisted a “natural born citizen” must be born of two parents who are both citizens of the US.

  42. avatar
    Hitandrun February 24, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    Thank you, Doc and Bob.

    Nonetheless I remain unconvinced that a writ of quo warranto has “never been available to citizens” in fact or in theory.

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  43. avatar
    Hitandrun February 24, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    brygenon,

    Here’s someone else who wants “to know where President Obama was born”, or at least have it definitively established for the public record:

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/dr-taitzs-military-action-welcomes-officer-easterling.aspx

    You and many of your colleagues continue to frame the issue in terms of legal compulsion, rather than asking whether it would not have been wise and politic for both Mr Obama and Mr McCain to have publicly released their properly attested birth documents long ago on their own. I suspect, though, Mr McCain may have far more to hide than Mr Obama, who is most likely Hawaiian born.

    Hitandrun

  44. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 24, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    Obama DID publicly release his birth certificate last summer.

    He can’t help it that some people are either too crazy or too stupid to recognize an official document that is right in front of their face.

  45. avatar
    Hitandrun February 24, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    Why, Expelliarmus, do you jump to an unfounded accusation of “double standard”? Doc will confirm I raised with him the McCain issue in the Hollander suit long before you began posting here. Unfortunately the search limitations of this site prevent one from easily locating such exchanges. Suffice it to say, we are in agreement on the suspicious conduct of Mr McCain and that of his campaign personnel on this very same eligibility issue. There may indeed be a pattern of deception here which the Arizonan from Panama was reluctant to highlight by challenging his opponent. As noted earlier, he may have had more to hide than any native-born Hawaiian.

    Hitandrun

  46. avatar
    Hitandrun February 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Expelliarmus,

    As you know, Mr Obama has never publicly released a certified photocopy of the vault birth document from which the released CnOLB was abstracted. NEVER! Unfortunately many of your fellow travellers, whether deliberately or inadvertently, conflate the two every chance they get. I trust you will not descend to that level.

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  47. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 24, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    And no judge or court on the planet would ever ask him to.

    The COLB he has produced is legal and sufficient for all purposes.

  48. avatar
    Hitandrun February 24, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    Expelliarmus, I don’t possess your prophetic gifts. Time will tell.

    As for the CnOLB, it is legally sufficient for most but not for all purposes.

    Good evening to all,
    Hitandrun

  49. avatar
    Bob February 24, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    And do you question Berg (and Apuzzo) about the legal basis for their claims that a federal writ of quo warranto may be used to remove the president (especially when the U.S. Constitution already explicitly explains how to do so, i.e., impeachment)? Have either of them ever cited a case even implying it might be possible? Why hasn’t Berg filed his quo warranto action?

    Oh, bonus answer:

    “On consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion, that no writ of quo warranto can be maintained, but at the instance of the Government; and as this is a writ issued by an individual without the authority of Government, it is the opinion of this Court, that the same cannot be sustained, whatever may be the right of that individual, or of the person who claims to exercise the office, to try the title to which, the writ is brought.”

    Wallace v. Anderson, 18 U.S. 291, 292 (1820) (bolding added).

  50. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Well if and when Barack Obama applies for a land grant in Hawaii based on a claim that he is a native-born Hawaiian… I’ll agree with you.

    The COLB certainly is sufficient under state and federal law to document that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    Most excellent information, Bob.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    I’m not a judge, so I won’t be deciding. Don’t know about chief justice bob.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2009 at 9:53 pm #

    HR,

    I’ve spent the past two days with an office that issues birth certificates. All of them are computer printed abstracts. Even though they have readily accessible images for documents from some years, they don’t issue them except in extraordinary circumstances. The reason is that REAL birth certificates have more information than the so-called long form from Hawaii for Alan that we’ve seen on the Internet. There is medical information related to risk factors, complications of labor and delivery, congenital abnormalities, etc. To issue a full certificate, they would have to redact (black out) large portions of the real long form.

  54. avatar
    brygenon February 25, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    No, Hitandrun, that’s not someone who wants to know where Obama was born; that’s self-deluded shyster Orly Taitz.

  55. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 25, 2009 at 1:33 am #

    Thanks for that info — I didn’t realize it but now have learned that the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics puts out a standard recommended long form for hospitals to use — here is a link to what appears to be the most current iteration of the form:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf

    I doubt very seriously that this is something Obama would have a copy of or that would typically be released.

    You are correct in your characterization of this information, though I’m sure that now that I’ve posted this, there are probably some out there who will suddenly profess a need to know Obama’s Apgar score, whether he was breast fed, and whether his mother smoked during pregnancy.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2009 at 6:54 am #

    Yes, 2003 is the latest NCHS Birth standard. States start with this form and the modify it for their individual needs. The key factor in whether a birther wants a document is whether it’s available or not.

  57. avatar
    brygenon February 25, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    Painting such kooks as right or left is a mistake. Note that 9-11 kooks tended to regard G. W. Bush as a mass-murderer, but they never said things would be better with a Democrat in charge.

    Independents are over-represented in political kookery. The are always in the opposition, because their vehement self-righteousness prevents them from playing well with others.

  58. avatar
    Hitandrun February 25, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Thank you, Bob, but my doubts are not dispelled. In the linked essay, check out the table’s Right #1 and Footnote #2:

    http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm

    Enjoy!
    Hitandrun

  59. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 25, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    Hitandrun, you seem to be confusing the concept of “what the law is” with “what you (or others) wish the law might be”.

    Under our Constitutional system of government, the power of the courts is limited. Lower courts do not have the power to defy precedent — so it is simply an exercise in futility for a private citizen to file an action for quo warranto when all existing authority is that such proceedings can only be initiated by the government.

  60. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    I’d also point out that even if quo warranto was a proper cause of action, it would not open the door to re-examine Obama’s qualifications. The writ actually means, “by what authority?”– or, “who appointed you?”….. not “are you qualified?”

    So the FACT that Obama won the vote of the electoral college, which was ratified by Congress, and that he was subsequently inaugurated is sufficient to demonstrate where he derives his authority.

  61. avatar
    Bob February 25, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    Wow. In response to a U.S. Supreme Court case (authored by Chief Justice Marshall, even!) that explicitly says there is no federal quo warranto available to individuals, you cite an article by Jon Roland.

    Let’s start with noted non-scholar Roland:
    http://www.jonroland.org/

    Surely Roland must know more about the United States law at the time of the nation’s origins than Chief Justice Marshall. Surely.

    You cite Right No. 1 in Roland’s article. In the table, Roland lists the writ of quo warranto, but adds “which any person has the right to prosecute on behalf of anyone else.”

    Clicking through his links, you eventually land at:
    http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm

    However, if actually read those source materials, none of them state that a writ of pro warranto was available to any person. In fact, they all acknowledge that originally only the king could seek such a writ. Roland himself grudgingly acknowledges this when he says the writ of quo warranto “has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States.”

    Interestingly, the source Roland cites to support Right No. 1 is New York State’s ratification debates, which explicitly states, “That all commissions, writs, and processes, shall run in the name of the people of the United States, and be tested in the name of the President of the United States, or the person holding his place for the time being, or the first judge of the court out of which the same shall issue.” So the New York State debates actually asserts the opposite of what you think Right No. 1 says.

    You then site footnote 2, which leads to a law review article about the Ninth Amendment. An article that never once mentions the writ of quo warranto.

    Enjoy.

  62. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 25, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    Bob, just for fun, you might enjoy this clip (Stephen Colbert interviews Cliff Sloan about Marbury v. Madison)
    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/219668/february-24-2009/cliff-sloan

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

    Military.com feature on Easterling.

  64. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    Obama requested his BC in 2007 to meet DNC requirements, he later piosted it on his web site, it is the obly form that Hawaii sends.

    my daughter was born in Hawaii in 1965, her BC resembles Obama’s exactly. I emailed to Hawaii requesting a copy of her long form vault BC, the States reply was:
    “We issue only computer-generated certificates of birth. Long form “vault” copis are not available”
    So why do Bithers ask for somethiong that is not available. You may call Hawaii yourself to verify this:
    Information on issuance of certified copies of vital records, Apostilles, amendment of vital records, amended birth certificates (for adopted persons, etc.), and late registration may also be obtained via the telephone system, by calling (808) 586-4533.

    Birhters won’t call as the answer destroys one of their talking points.

  65. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    yes I can, it was Queen Kapiolani Hosptial (some times erroniously called Queens Hospital), the same hospital my daughter was born, have you called Hawaii yet.

  66. avatar
    Hitandrun February 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Thank you Bob and Expelliarmus for your helpful replies.

    Both of you seem to be standing inside the forest describing newly planted trees as representing the forest as a whole. You are ignoring or rather confusing what was authentic Constitutional law with its current corruption. I urge you both to step outside the forest and take a broader historical look at such subjects as standing, presentment, perogative writs, petition, unenumerated reserved rights, etc., before all our rights are eroded away and their exercise unconstitutionally restricted. You might start out with the linked article on standing at the same constitutional.org site:

    http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

    Stay well,
    Hitandrun

  67. avatar
    Hitandrun February 26, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Doc,

    In the case of Mr Obama, the problem is not what birth document a given agency can issue, but what Mr Obama himself will release. Isn’t that crystal clear by now?

    Hitandrun

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    I daresay Obama doesn’t think about the issue.

  69. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    You are ignoring or rather confusing what was authentic Constitutional law with its current corruption.

    And you are ignoring or rather confusing what you would like the law to be with what the law actually is. Yours (or Roland’s) interpretation of “authentic Constitutional law” is simply not legally binding.

    http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

    For the second time, this article does not ever once mention the writ of quo warranto. (And for good reason: As that writ was never a right retained by the people, the 9th Amendment is simply inapplicable.)

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Obama Conspiracy Theories is focused on Barack Obama and so standing is at best tangential to the topic. It seems to me that the lswsuits are being used not to redress grievances, nor to uphold the constitution, but rather as publicity stunts to publicize the particulars of a smear campaign. I’m not saying that Hitandrun is insincere, but I think the nObama lawyers are.

    As a general principle, I think political matters belong in the hands of the voters and not the courts. And when I say “in the hands of the voters” I mean the voters exercising their right to vote not some vigilante “National Grand Jury” or “Civilian Militia”.

    If anyone thinks the Courts have abused the Constitution, there is a political way to solve the problem. Congress can pass laws giving people standing, a constitutional amendment can be passed, or a president elected who will appoint judges with a different viewpoint.

  71. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    The lawsuits are a method to obtain judicially sanctioned subpoena power. Occidental can’t just give Obama’s records to Taitz, but will turn them over to her if ordered to do so by a court.

    And that’s why Obama moved to quash to subpoena served on Occidental: There’s nothing in those records that relate to the allegations of that lawsuit (that the California Secretary of State allegedly failed to properly vet Obama). Same with Pidgeon trying to subpoena Hawaii’s records for the suit against Washington State’s Secretary of State.

  72. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 26, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    Dr. Can you give a little more info on this law? It’s the one always touted as reason for needing the vault record – yet I read it as having been enacted in 1982 so it was applicable at the time. Am I correct?

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

  73. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    HRS 338-17.8 was enacted in 1982, so obviously it could not have applied to a birth recorded in 1961. However, there may have been comparable successor statutes.

    HRS 338-17.8 does not explain how (as the theory goes) a foreign-born child would be able to obtain a COLB listing the place of birth as “Honolulu.”

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    Yes, the “L 1982” at the bottom means the law was first passed in 1982.

    If the law was passed in 1982, then for Obama’s birth to have been registered pursuant to this law, the birth would have to be registered in 1982 or later (e.g. when Obama was at least 21 years old). Unless the COLB is false (and this would be inconsistent with a positive sounding official statement from the Hawaii Department of Health and the 1961 newspaper announcements), Obama’s birth was registered on August 8, 1961 (before the law). And in any case, Barack Obama was not a “minor child” in 1982, and the law wouldn’t have applied for that reason even after it was passed.

    You might be somewhat puzzled that anyone would cite such an obviously inapplicable law. I must confess that I didn’t catch the significance of the L 1982 notation until a lawyer on another forum pointed it out to me (before this blog started). Lawyers in the nObama lawsuits make the mistake too, and that I cannot understand.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    Bob,

    I’ve looked at the various laws on the Hawaiian Current Law web site. When a law is changed, they include the citation for the previous versions at the bottom, and when a law is repealed, there is a blank record.

    There is no predecessor for HRS 338-17.8.

    However, whatever and whenever the law, the COLB says: Location of Birth: Honolulu and there is no escaping that.

  76. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 26, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    And you win the prize.

    Many of those who fall for the “which hospital” hazard do not realize that Kapiolani was also a Queen.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    Question for the lawyers:

    Is Obama’s lawyer’s motion to quash the the subpoena like totally expected (no matter what the content of the records is)?

  78. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    For some real fun… get the largest copy of the McCain “Colon certificate” you can find.

    Open it in your favorite image program.

    Look very closely in the area where the birthplace of the parents is listed – well to the right of where USA is shown.

    Then, look immediately to the left of the “C” in “Colon”.

    Paging Dr. Polarik….

  79. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    That requirement is clearly printed in the “vault copy” of the Constitution.

  80. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 26, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    Well if you mean this one:
    http://images.quickblogcast.com/96531-89184/mccain_birth.jpg

    U.S.A. isn’t even in the same type face as the other entries on the paper.

  81. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 26, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    Yes, it is.

    Given the volume of cases filed against any president, the principle is to get them dismissed prior to any “fishing expedition” discovery for anything, no matter what fish are being sought.

    Recall… the entire Clinton hullabaloo was over whether he had lied about Lewinsky during a deposition (and if you ever bother to read that transcript, you’ll find that they had gone through several revisions of the what “sex” was).

    Why was he in a deposition? Because of the Paula Jones case. Not only was the Lewinsky matter not at all relevant to any claim of Jones, but the Jones case itself was dismissed in toto for failure to demonstrate harm. The case was without substantive merit.

    But what we ended up with was several months worth of gyrations about whether he lied in a deposition on a subject that was (a) irrelevant to (b) a meritless claim in the first place.

    The object of filing lawsuits of this type generally is to be able to get into discovery and then go bananas over stuff that is not material to the claims of the lawsuit.

    The rational response is, with no exceptions, to not get drawn into discovery in the first place. Once you start down the road of “oh, it’s just some stupid documents”, and “oh, it’s just a deposition of some nobody somewhere”, you eventually find yourself at a point on that road where the president has to schedule time for an open-ended examination by crazy people.

  82. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 26, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    Yes, one would assume that the lawyers would move to quash any subpoena.

    However, it is conceivable that they could neglect to do by mistake or oversight — so the anticipated response would not necessarily deter a lawyer from serving the subpoena.

  83. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    Or: The lawyer serving the subpoena could “forget” to properly notify the opposing party about the subpoena (*cough* *Orly Taitz* *cough*). Some third party could inadvertently comply with an invalid subpoena, and any evidence so discovered would likely end up being leaked eventually.

  84. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    I don’t think there’s a predecessor to HRS 338-17.8 either, but I haven’t done an extensive search. None of the nObamas have cited one.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    Yes, but there IS a separate and distinct Queens Hospital.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    I did a “Polarik” when I saw this the first time; it just didn’t look right. In addition it didn’t come from Hollander v. McCain; it just appeared on the Internet one day. One thing was interesting; it appears Panama uses the same security paper as Hawaii!

    What this is, on the face of it, is a photocopy of a certificate issued in 1980. A real certified copy would be in color, printed on security paper. This one is B&W except for the rust stain around the staple upper right. This would suggest that the document was filed somewhere with some application requiring a birth certificate in 1980 (but why would McCain need a BC in 1980???).

    I think with a little more work, one could puzzle what this really is.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    If you zoom in on the Mother’s birthplace below the label “miento”, you will see the letters “ama”. Also to the left of “Roberta Wright”, you see the bars on the security paper extend too high.

    The certificate number doesn’t even match the “long form” published in Hollander v. McCain.

    Pretty sloppy fake.

  88. avatar
    Kelly February 26, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Thank you so much for this explanation. When I first saw mention of this, (I believe it was here), I was shocked to think that these attorneys filing these lawsuits are so ignorant of the law they are citing. Of course, these lawyers don’t practice in Hawaii which might explain why they are misrepresenting the law.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    “Of course, these lawyers don’t practice in Hawaii which might explain why they are misrepresenting the law.”

    That would be interpreting their actions in the best possible light (something I generally consider a virtue). However, when such things are pointed out to them on their blogs, the story doesn’t change. When a lawyer signs a complaint, they have a duty to get it right.

  90. avatar
    bob rowan February 27, 2009 at 10:05 am #

    Let me get his straight…”citezens do not have standing” Hmmm… Now that current military officers & retired officers of our military have signed on with Dr.Orly Taitz in a suit against Barry Soetero (B.O.). Are you suggesting that our military has no standing to defend our constitution?
    Brave oficers are comming forward claiming they cannot obide by fradulent orders by a usurper. Ahh yes, & what about Allen Keeyes suit. Wow.. a black guy who ran for president against B.O.
    B.O. will probaly be shot or spend an awfull long time in prison for this fraud.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    Well are you saying a military officer who pulled out a gun and shot the President should be given a medal for “defending the Constitution”. That’s where I see your argument leading.

  92. avatar
    richCares February 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    Orly and her mad fans actually believe that Obama attended Occidental as a foreign exchange student as Barry Soetoro (even though Occidental states “Barrack Obama appled and attended) Orly says “we have proof” but is safely keeping this proof safe from those that ask “what is your proof”

    the entire Occidental thing is to get Barry Soetoro Foreign exchange student proof! Orly knows that’s false but it plays well with her fans. (raises funds)

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    Perhaps one day I’ll write an article titled: “Has Gary Kreep created a Monster?”

    Hmm, Godzilla (Obama) v. King Ghidora the three-headed monster (Berg, Taitz, Apuzzo).

  94. avatar
    mimi February 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    Brave soldiers? I find them to be more idiot than brave. And, a lot of their fellow soldiers feel the same.

    As for Alan Keyes, he has had a problem with Obama for years. The election in Illinois was won by a LANDSLIDE by Obama. Keyes refused to make the customary congratulatory phonecall. Ya think he has a problem?

    Why are you highlighting the fact that Keyes is black? Keyes opposed any economic sanctions against South Africa during Apartheid. The Black Community did NOT hold Mr. Keyes in high esteem.

    What fraud. If you take some time on this site, it is a goldmine of information. Every claim Orly makes is debunked here.

    If there is a fraud, it would be Orly Taitz. I have no idea how she passed her correspondence school law courses.

  95. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 27, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    I agree that if an attorney signs his/her name to a complaint they had better understand the law they are basing it on. It’s one thing if it is a pro se plaintiff, but an attorney is held to a higher standard. So far, I haven’t been impressed.

  96. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    However, the “evidence” retrieved by such underhanded means would be fruit of the poisonous tree and thus could not be used in any official or legal case. So that would be a moot point.

  97. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Well, they are trying to find stuff that is potentially embarrassing to Obama that they can release to the media — that’s why they want to go digging around old school records.

    Even so, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” concept applies in criminal cases to evidence unlawfully seized by the police. It was created as a means of deterring official misconduct. It doesn’t apply against private conduct nor to civil cases. A civil judge might still exclude evidence because of the manner it was obtained, but that would be discretionary, not compelled by case authority.

  98. avatar
    Bob February 27, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    Yes, these cases are very much being waged in “the court of public opinion,” which has no exclusionary rules.

  99. avatar
    Hitandrun February 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    Doc,

    I’d be more interested to know if you remain undecided as to the authenticity of the ‘birth document’ adduced in the Hollander case.

    Hitandrun

  100. avatar
    Hitandrun February 27, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    Doc,

    I’d be more interested to know if you remain undecided as to the authenticity of the ‘birth document’ adduced in the Hollander case.

    Hitandrun

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2009 at 6:35 pm #

    I have decided that the Hollander v. McCain certificate is also a forgery.

  102. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 27, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    I think you are right, but I’d point out that McCain never released a copy of a real (or purportedly real) certificate — so we don’t have access to examine whatever documentation of his birth that he claims to exist.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    I’m comfortable with just the newspaper announcement for my personal opinion. If McCain ever went to court, then he could show his birth certificate.

    It has come to light that the vetting of presidential candidates appears rather haphazard and informal. (There may have been vetting not made public.) That probably should be taken care of before the next election. Heck, a simple state law passed between now and 2012 could get Obama’s birth certificate looked at by a state election official.

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 13, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    The US Attorney requested an extension of time in which to file a response until May 5, and it was granted. Also:

    Date: April 13, 2009

    SIR:
    Please enter my appearance in the above matter on behalf of Defendants United States of America and President Barack Hussein Obama.

    RALPH J. MARRA, JR.
    Acting United States Attorney

    ELIZABETH A. PASCAL
    Assistant U.S. Attorney

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    The above comment is a traceback, meaning something was posted on that other site that links this blog.

    “Amusing” is one of those snotty, arrogant, condescending words that I have no use for (at least when directed at me 😉 )

    The writer seems to be confused that this web site “attacks the requirement” set forth in the Constitution that qualifies the president. Given that the other side is engaging in a campaign to change the requirement from something every school child (that was paying attention) knew for the last couple hundred years, I think it is more accurate to say that we are defending the requirement. Find me one court case, law or civics book that disagrees.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    The most important point here, is that Maya Soetoro-Ng never said Obama was born at Queens hospital. Here’s where the factoid originated.

    Notice that it is a child reporter who says this, not Obama’s half sister Maya.

  107. avatar
    jtx June 26, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    Doc:

    Not the case – more accurately, the copy of the purported COLB on a computer website states that. No one has ever seen any actual COLB … but perhaps you have??

  108. avatar
    jtx June 26, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    Kelly:

    In fact as you’ll eventually come to realize it is Dr. Conspiracy who is misinterpreting the HI law.

    But heck, that’s his entire raison d’etre!

  109. avatar
    jtx June 26, 2009 at 10:01 pm #

    Source!:

    That’s how Doc gets his jollies as a good O-borter fan.

    Je likes to pretend that the Constitution says than anyone born in the US can be eligible for prex … that means one of those anchor babies will someday be elected and put out an Executive Order to create a US National Holiday to celebrate Cinco de Mayo for his homeland (if the O-borter hasn’t already done it).

  110. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 26, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    Then please explain it if Dr. C has misinterpreted the law. All I’ve seen from you so far is promises of a case being heard in court and statements that everyone here is wrong. Nothing substantive.

  111. avatar
    HistorianDude June 26, 2009 at 10:44 pm #

    And you have a problem with that?

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    jtx, it seems that you’ve made it clear finally where you’re coming from. But I don’t have to pretend what the Constitution says. I have 50 articles on this web site explaining what I think about who can be president based on authority. All you have is a [not worth the bother of coming up with insult].

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    That’s a big laugh. I’ve spent a lot of time reading those laws, and they are quite straightforward and don’t require anything beyond careful reading.

  114. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    Finally some “true colors” shining through and it ain’t a pretty one.
    Of course, not having the facts on one’s side can cause one to make quite some foolish comments.
    For that I give thanks

  115. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    No one has ever seen any actual COLB … but perhaps you have??

    That’s pretty silly since the people who took the photographs must surely have seen the actual COLB. And the photos show the actual COLB which according to Hawaiian DOH officials was a valid certificate.

    What evidence do you have?

    I thought so…

  116. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    In fact as you’ll eventually come to realize it is Dr. Conspiracy who is misinterpreting the HI law.

    Funny how JTX seems to be so easy at making assertions but at the same time having so much trouble to support them.

    Fascinating irony

  117. avatar
    myson June 27, 2009 at 7:56 am #

    U know, after going thru the govt response to the case, when REAL & COMPETENT lawyers get on the seen useless lawyers must give way !!!
    Concise & clear pleadings with relevant authorities is the hallmark of a good attorney, the birthers have bad attorneys on there side !!!

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    If somebody came here and said “Hey Doc, you said Hawaiian law xxx-xxxx says y, but I think it says z” I would be more than happy to discuss it. But this “you misinterpret the law” junk says nothing, and you can’t debate nothing.

  119. avatar
    Jeff R June 29, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    Maybe someone somewhere has already addressed this, but when the 2nd amended complaint makes these requests of the judge by way of “relief” —

    “4. Declare and define what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States.”

    [followed by, a bit later . . .]

    “10. Declare that defendant Barack Hussein Obama II is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” AS DEFINED BY THE COURT.” [caps mine]

    Isn’t this putting the you know what before the you know what? This seems beyond presumptuous, it is trying to dictate to the court how it will rule in the case. Is the judge supposed to take these as mere suggestions?

  120. avatar
    AverageJoe July 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    Doc.
    There is something fishy with the law supposedly only being first passed in 1982.
    It references “the Territory or State of Hawaii”
    No need to reference something that hadn’t been in effect for what? Fifty some years?

    To me this indicates, because of the language, that it was in effect (passed) much earlier than indicated, or was taken from another § that was in effect at the time when “Territory” had meaning to the statute.

  121. avatar
    Bob July 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Well, now you’ve got your homework.

    Report back when you’re done.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    First it would be 33 years, not 50 years. (1982-1959)

    I don’t see anything odd. The law specifically states that adults can apply, and many adults in 1982 were born before Hawaii became a state in 1959. What would have been odd would be for the law to have excluded a significant part of the population by not mentioning the Territory.

  123. avatar
    Bob July 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    While that is reasonable, it is also reasonable to think that some sort of precursor to HRS § 338-17.8 existed prior to 1982.

    For example, some birfers have trotted out Act 96 of Laws of the Territory of Hawaii, which was passed in 1911. I even have seen a few claim that the 1911 law was still in effect in 1961.

    The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

    What is obviously false about HRS § 338-17.8 is that: (1) it was in existence in 1961; and (2) allows for foreign births to list the place of births as Honolulu.

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    I don’t see how the 1911 act allows for registration of anyone not born in Hawaii.

    Section 96.

    An Act

    To provide for the issuance of Certificates of Hawaiian Birth.

    Be it enacted by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii that:

    Section 1. The Secretary of Hawaii may, when satisfied that any such person born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. The Secretary may, with the approval of the Governor, make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, and place, and manner of hearing, and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application …

  125. avatar
    Bob July 16, 2009 at 5:46 pm #

    That’s usually cited to show how “easy” it is to get a birth certificate in Hawaii. (Usually part of the there’s-no-proof-Obama-was-born-in-a-hospital argument.)

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    Well, as we know in the case of Sun Yat-Sen, all you had to do is get a couple of people to swear under penalty of perjury for you, and you could get a birth certificate. But this was for a Certificate of Hawaiian birth, one issued to an adult years after the fact. Obama’s birth was registered just 4 days after his birth, not a delayed birth (where most birth certificate fraud occurs). There’s no way a birth could have been registered that fast outside of a hospital setting.

    If there were any reason under the sun to think the President wasn’t born in Hawaii, then perhaps one might be tempted to ask questions, but there is not.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    Brief update, comment from The Right Side of Life, via Politijab:

    The Kerchner complaint has not been dismissed. Mario Apuzzo updated his site yesterday, stating that he called the judge’s office and spoke with the clerk. She had no news for him, even though a decision on his counter-motion to dismiss was due a month ago. I believe that shows that the judge is proceeding very carefully, knowing that Mario has an extremely cogent argument dealing with important constitutional questions.

    Always loved that word “cogent”.

    It is ironic that BEFORE the judge rules in these cases, they are being careful, following the law, judicious and fair; AFTER the ruling they are incompetent, traitors, wimps, wusses and thugs.

  128. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 10:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You state:

    “There’s no way a birth could have been registered that fast outside of a hospital setting.”

    You are assuming facts not in evidence. Where is the independent, sufficient, and credible evidence as to the date, time, and place of birth? And please, do not tell me it is in the on-line COLB, or in the Hawaii Health officials oral statements, or in the two newspaper announcements.

    Help me understand this issue. I will appreciate a comprehensive response from you since you are well-versed on this subject and if any such evidence existed, you would have it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  129. avatar
    nbc September 24, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    You are assuming facts not in evidence.

    Is that not a large part of what Kerchner v Obama is all about? Such as the unsupported claim that President Obama has a duty to show himself to be natural born…

    Of course, it does not matter if he was born in a hospital or at home, either way, he would be born on US soil and thus, a natural born citizen by any meaningful interpretation of this phrase, either under Vattel’s Law of Nations or the Common Law of jus soli.

  130. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    nbc,

    Can you read? I said evidence not argument.

  131. avatar
    SFJeff September 24, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    “Where is the independent, sufficient, and credible evidence as to the date, time, and place of birth? And please, do not tell me it is in the on-line COLB, or in the Hawaii Health officials oral statements, or in the two newspaper announcements.”

    Hmmm those are all independent, sufficient and credible evidence. If those aren’t sufficient, what would be Mario? If authorized copy that Obama presented isn’t credible and sufficient, why would any other version be credible and sufficient. So what evidence would you consider to be independent, sufficient and credible?

  132. avatar
    Bob September 24, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    I said evidence not argument.

    And that’s what nbc said to you.

    Where’s the evidence that Obama was not born in a hospital in Hawaii?

  133. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    Evidence: Something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.

    The COLB, the photos of the COLB at Factcheck, the signature attesting it is a true copy or abstract of vital records visible on the photos of the COLB, the statements of the employees of the Department of Health, the newspaper announcements.

    That is evidence that he was born on that day, at that time.

    Also evidence: the fact that Obama celebrates his birthday on that day every year. The fact that the Obama campaign posted the COLB. The fact that they gave Factcheck a copy of the COLB to photograph. The fact that neither Hillary, nor McCain could unearth that he was born at some other time. The fact that WND can’t unearth any evidence that he was born at some other time.

    What evidence do you think there would be for someone who is not in court trying to prove the facts of their birth? What evidence is there that Bush was born on the day/time he claims? Do you expect there to be a place where you can go to see and fondle Obama’s long-form birth certificate?

    A better question is what evidence do you have that he was born at some other time?

    That he could have gotten a birth certificate on the testimony of a relative (assuming Orly’s reading of the law is correct – which given her ability to read court rules is assuming a lot!)? Goes to the weight of the COLB, doesn’t tend to prove he was born at a different time.

    Internet experts claiming the COLB is forged? Ditto – weight of the COLB

    Announcements generated by agency? Weight of the announcements.

    (The lack of any evidence to the contrary is also evidence that he was born at the time/hour he states.)

    Let me put it this way, Mario, if we were going into court to prove Obama’s birth place and time, I would be happy to do it with just the evidence currently available as against the evidence available to your side! I’m confident that this evidence, taken together, could convince any jury of 12.

  134. avatar
    SFJeff September 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    Well Mario still seems to think that in America, Plaintiffs have no obligation to provide proof, but Defendents have a grave obligation to provide evidence.

    I think he watched too much Perry Mason and misunderstood that even though Perry was out there digging up evidence, it wasn’t his job.

  135. avatar
    MTinMO November 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    But Perry was doing it to prove his client was innocent of the charges against them. He had reason. In this case, or rather, in these cases, the plaintiff is required to bring the evidence that it is something other than what the president has produced. The problem is, these “attorneys” seem to lack that knowledge. I am not an attorney, nor have I studied law, but I do read a great deal and I am capable of comprehending what I read. I am aware of the fact that the defense doesn’t have the burden of proof. I have read several of these cases and I’m amazed at the amount of rumor and hearsay being presented as fact in official court filings. They won’t accept the obvious as true and they bring some of the most outlandish claims one could imagine. Wonder what they will come up with next?

  136. avatar
    Apuzzo Dip April 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    did you get your law degree from University of Phoenix?

  137. avatar
    yguy May 11, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    “However, whatever and whenever the law, the COLB says: Location of Birth: Honolulu and there is no escaping that.”

    Yes, but that’s only meaningful if the law demands that the document note the actual birthplace. On its face, §338-17.8 requires the DoH to issue a birth certificate on satisfaction of certain conditions, one of which is not proof of – or even a statement of – the actual place of birth; so the conclusion that the COLB necessarily states the actual birthplace needs for its basis some other statute(s) or regulations(s).

  138. avatar
    myson May 11, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Rubbish !!!!.

    I love how the birthers are all about “what ifs” but never what is !!!

    The doc (which d state is a BC ) states Honolulu, then that where he was born

  139. avatar
    yguy May 11, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    ‘And in any case, Barack Obama was not a “minor child” in 1982, and the law wouldn’t have applied for that reason even after it was passed.’

    That’s a misread. Any adult can apply for a BC under the statute. Minor children can’t apply on their own behalf, but they can once they become adults. So Obama had a 20+ year window in which he could conceivably have gotten it done.

  140. avatar
    yguy May 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    Yes, we all know what it says. What we’re looking for is some law or regulation that would be violated if an applicant were issued a BC without evidence of birthplace under HRS §338-17.8, and the document issued listed HI as the birthplace. Maybe it’s there, but I haven’t come across it yet.