Main Menu

Government will move to dismiss Kerchner case

Hollister v. Soetoro

Kerchner v Obama

“judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud”

In documents filed today the US Government notified the US District Court of New Jersey that it intended to move to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles Kerchner.

Obama Conspiracy Theories has been following this lawsuit closely, publishing 2 feature articles:

The round of delays is now over and the government has responded with notice of a forthcoming  motion for dismissal.

Read what the government has to say.

I want to add a personal note here. When I went through Kercher’s 2nd Amended Complaint, replying point by point to the substantive claims it made, I wrote, “There are over 300 of these freaking points!” expressing the royal pain it was to schlog through the misinformation and twisted rhetoric. Imagine my delight to learn that there are federal rules against such things. The government said:

POINT III – PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE STRICKEN BECAUSE IT FAILS TO PROVIDE A SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a motion to strike provides the appropriate remedy to eliminate redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter in any pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A complaint “‘laden with unnecessary factual narrative’” is the proper subject of a motion to strike. … Indeed, “[c]ourts have looked with disfavor on complaints that appear to detail every instance of alleged wrongful conduct on the part of a defendant.” Id. (citations omitted).

Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading shall contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in this case is anything but short and plain. Instead, its prolix nature invites the Defendants’ attorneys to respond at their peril should they fail to adequately investigate each allegation, or fail to interview each person identified before answering the factual morass contained within it.

Defendants’ attorneys are not required to undertake their own burdensome and time-consuming full-scale investigation of Plaintiffs’ verbose complaint, before they may find themselves in a position where they are able to comprehend and respond to it. See, e.g., Untracht v. Fikri, 368 F. Supp. 2d 409, 414-15 (W.D. Pa. 2005) (collecting cases dealing with dismissal of pleadings laden with unnecessary factual narrative). The goal behind Rule 8(a) is
to provide the opposing litigant with fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is, and the grounds on which it rests, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), with only enough facts pleaded to show the right to relief above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56. In that respect, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discourage the pleading of evidence. Drysdale v. Woerth, No. 98-3090, 1998 WL 966020, *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 1998) (dismissing prolix complaint that described in unnecessary and burdensome detail every instance of defendant’s alleged misconduct); Burks v. City of Philadelphia, 904 F. Supp. 421, 424 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (dismissing complaint without prejudice because of its unnecessary, burdensome, and improper argumentative detail). “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings
straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” United States ex rel.  Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003), quoted in Parker v. Learn The Skills Corp., No. 03-6936, 2004 WL 2384993, *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2004) (dismissing complaint without prejudice because it was lengthy in its factual allegations of wrongful conduct and lacked clarity).

In this case, Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint utterly fails to conform to the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). The second amended complaint is 87 pages long, consisting of 387 paragraphs of allegations, a 30-paragraph prayer for relief, and 43
single-spaced endnotes, some of which are quite lengthy. See Dkt. Entry 3. Plaintiffs plead a host of needless detail, the relevancy of which is not clear, and to which Defendants cannot respond because it is drawn from various internet webpages and sundry outside sources. See, e.g., endnote 5 (CNN Electoral Map Calculator); endnote 8 (referencing Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the Magna Carta); endnote 10 (citation to the Honolulu Star Bulletin); endnote 12 (quotations from the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Vital Records webpage; (references to Snopes and FactCheck). Defendants move to strike the second amended complaint under Rule 8(a) because it imposes an unduly burdensome task upon the Defendants in attempting to understand and respond to it in its present excessively lengthy
form. Accordingly, Defendants urge this Court to strike Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

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

123 Responses to Government will move to dismiss Kerchner case

  1. avatar
    richCares June 26, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    so sad, jtx was counting on this case, what will he do now, there are no more.

  2. avatar
    nbc June 26, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    The judge has not ruled yet. Of course, given the precedents, it seems unlikely that the Court will diverge

  3. avatar
    misha June 26, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    He and his coterie will say the judge is not doing his duty, and he is in the conspiracy.

    Reasoning with birthers is a fool’s errand.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    As I see it, the govern has basically answered a copy of Berg v. Obama with a copy of the argument that defeated Berg v. Obama.

  5. avatar
    Mike June 27, 2009 at 6:14 am #

    Doc:

    WingNutDaily is pimping this one, too, claiming imminent victory and that a judge (actually a US Magistrate) is on the side of the birthers:

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102156

  6. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 27, 2009 at 6:50 am #

    The stupidity never ceased to amaze me.

    The Judge wrote that the case raised “raises significant” requiring that the defendants “engage competent counsel” in support of granting the DEFENSE motion for additional time. The time was needed to follow appropriate procedures to determine whether the Justice Dept. could properly represent all named defendants. The judge meant that the case was complicated enough to justify the US Attorney taking extra time to make a determination as to who it could represent.

    (The main issue on the US Attorneys end was evaluating the complaint for possible conflicts of interest among the defendants. That’s a question of legal ethics that has to be approached with care.)

    The next step is that the Judge will throw out this piece of crap lawsuit just like every other one. The US Attorney’s brief in support of the motion to dismiss is a model of brevity, and very narrowly crafted — which to me demonstrates confidence on the part of the attorney that they will easily win their motion.

  7. avatar
    myson June 27, 2009 at 7:59 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 !!!

  8. avatar
    Mike June 27, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    Oh, for sure. I don’t think there’s any doubt that this will go the way of all birfer cases – into the round file of history.

    It plays into their imminent victory narrative, though – it always seems like that special case is just around the corner.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 10:34 am #

    I wanted to comment on the letters received by the court and added to the docket. “It’s unbelievable,” Apuzzo said. “The court put the letters on Pacer.”

    I don’t know how unusual this really (Apuzzo probably doesn’t either). The overwhelming public outcry (20 letters) over further delay in the case did not tax the court’s electronic filing system.

    One letter from CPT Pamela Barnett (US Army Ret.) says that the government using the delay to “create and delete documents and concoct stories.” She sited a couple of articles from right-wing news sources that generally smear Obama, but are unrelated to the case at hand.

    The other letters are the similar to each other [even down to the typos!] with the text:

    In reference to the above case, I strongly urge you NOT to allow any more extensions to the defendants. They’ve had the two allowed by law. Another would be a stalling tactics[sic] and unlawful..[sic] Please exercise your legal duty and proceed with this case.

    Dan Rodgers
    Ryan/DD Orogny
    Barb Shupenis
    Joy/Eleanor Roma
    Mary Lehsten
    Tony Kurtis
    Crissy Pettit
    Bernie Koslosky
    Art Olszewski
    Dolly Quiton
    Loretta Morris
    Joe Muscarella
    Jerry Thomas
    Joe stanek
    Pat Byrne
    Nick Gianno

    Another letter from Michael S. Richardson claims that the Constitution places ‘the burden to show/prove qualification for office lies with the candidate, not with the People.” In urging no further delays, Richardson wrote, “This issue is already a frustration of our Constitution and an abhorrence to our laws. This issue constitutes an Emergency…”

    Richard Lawrence Fitzgerald (a first time caller) wrote: “Entire law forms have been brought up to keep Obama’s early life a closely guarded secret. Literally, an army of law clerks have been employed to overwhelm any legal challenge to get to the truth.” [Note that the government is moving to dismiss this case because it was the plaintiffs whose complaint rambled on and on and on.]

    In summary we have four distinct letters one of which was sent by 16 people (none of whom saw the typos and the grammatical errors).

  10. avatar
    richCares June 27, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    “… proceed with this case.”
    from birthers who are totally unaware of the pure stupidity of this case. Sure, go ahead and proceed, to the logical dismissal.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    I thought it a nice touch that the government used the words of the complaint to prove that Kercher’s alleged harm was generalized and not specific.

  12. avatar
    Cymraeg June 27, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    I am a retired lawyer with 40 years experience under my belt. I had initially come to the conclusion that Taitz, Berg, Donofrio, et.al. were incredibly stupid. I have changed my mind. They know their pleadings are defective. They do not want these casses tried on their merits. They are playing to their internet cult followers. They want to create a belief that the “true patriots and supporters of the Constitution” are being persucuted. They want to keep all of this alive as long as possible so that the stream of money to them does not stop. They are also addicted to the attention they are getting on the internet.

  13. avatar
    Joyce June 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    “I am a retired lawyer with 40 years experience under my belt. I had initially come to the conclusion that Taitz, Berg, Donofrio, et.al. were incredibly stupid. I have changed my mind.”

    I think they think their followers are stupid.

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    I think their goal is to disrupt the Obama administration for political reasons, and having a series of law suits dismissed because of various improprieties serves their purpose of fueling the myth of a “cover up” and “conspiracy.” Obviously they would lose a case on the merits: any court would hold that the COLB clearly established Obama’s place of birth and that Obama is a natural born citizen under the law — whereas as long as the cases are tossed out, they can continue to play their role of crusaders, demanding production of non-existent and irrelevant documents, and inventing one false myth after another.

  15. avatar
    myson June 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Sorry typo in your comment, you wanted to say “I think they KNOW their followers are stupid.”

  16. avatar
    richCares June 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Sorry typo in your comment, you wanted to say “They KNOW their followers are stupid.”

  17. avatar
    Joyce June 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    Thanks for the correction.

  18. avatar
    misha June 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    “I think their goal is to disrupt the Obama administration for political reasons”

    Of course. I wrote this before: Orly believes that McSame/Palin would be better for Israel, and she feels if she makes enough noise they can derail Obama.

    Obama has/had two goals: to be the first black president, and to be the president who created Palestine. I’m Jewish, and I fully support him.

  19. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    To Cymraeg:

    And I’m a retured judge with 57 years of experience – and I totally disagree with your belief.

    A person who is truly interested can determine easily enough that the man is not eligible for the office he holds. It will certainly come out in court before long – and you’d better hope it does otherwise we will be ruled by a despot who is also a usurper.

    The fact that “the government” (actually the defense attorney) will move to dismiss is a normal tactic and nothing to get excited about. Don’t get your hopes up and give the good “Doc” (who is no doctor of anything except, perhaps, this pro-O website) a bad case of apoplexy.

    It’s not a political issue, but a legal one and NO ONE has ever shown the O-borter to be eligible under the Constitution (despite all the wishful thinking and palavering on politically-biased websites like this one).

  20. avatar
    richCares June 27, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    “And I’m a retured judge with 57 years of experience – and I totally disagree with your belief.”

    CORRECTION:
    And I’m a retarded judge with 57 years of no experience – and I totally disagree with your belief.

  21. avatar
    nbc June 27, 2009 at 6:16 pm #

    Jtx again ignores that this is not a legal question as it involves separation of powers in which the constitution clearly outlines how to proceed. Either congress impeaches or we wait for the people’s vote. As before kerchner is lacking standing and remedy.
    Those are the simple facts. Furthermore, Obama is not an usurper as he lawfully holds the title to his office.
    Such are the facts, but I forgot, you refuse to argue or present facts. Silly me.

  22. avatar
    racosta June 27, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    “retured”
    is that “retard”
    or
    is that “re turd”

    “I think they think their followers are stupid.”
    jtx just proved this point.

  23. avatar
    TRUTH June 27, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    Oh Look, its RichyEinstein putting his stupid twist on another persons words again.

    Judge, it’s ok you made a typo, us common sense people allow that. richycareless just can’t stand it when someone makes statements against his Messiah that don’t go along with his corky way of thinking.

  24. avatar
    racosta June 27, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    Isn’t truth is the one that claims “James von Brunn is a registered Democrat”. Keep in mind that, so far, this has been completely unsubstantiated by any source, hey but truth tells the truth doesn’t he. Well no, not really but he shouts some nasty insults that reflect more on him than on those he is insulting. He has quite convincingly destroyed his credibility without our help. For awhile he was good for a laugh, but now he is merely pathetic. He should shout his insults in a crowd so people can point and say “who is that idiot”. In your next round of insults, address them to the appropriate person, look in the mirror!

  25. avatar
    TRUTH June 27, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    actually that would be You RACOSTA who proved it. Your whining about an obvious typo. Yes, you are the smart one that’s a definite. (and that’s called sarcasm, you can google that word for an explanation)

  26. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    And being a retired judge, jtx, I persume that you will give us your full name, and where you’re from, so we can check your credentials.

    Or are you going to continue to hide behind the screen name? Prove to us that you are who you say you are, jtx. I’ll also be requiring full college transcripts from not only your law school, but also the school that you got your undergrad from, as well as your original birth certificate. No replacement birth certificate signified by a governmental agency will prove anything to us.

    Once you submit all this evidence, we may take you to be who you state that you are. Until you do that, I’m saying that you’re not who you say you are, but are actually a idiotic guy who lives on the basement of his mother’s couch, and has no job. Prove me wrong, jtx. Prove me wrong.

  27. avatar
    Mark June 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    So, President Obama is being sued based on cut-and-pasting from Internet conspiracy sites. Like the 1981 Pakistan lie. I am still waiting for an answer from Janet Porter of Faith2Action about this. Maybe she is busy reading the 9 Commandments.

    This is why America is great. If you tried to pull this crap in Iran you would wish you were in Gitmo.

    Can a lawyer be guilty of perjury for basing a case on a lie?

  28. avatar
    racosta June 27, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

    Sarcasm:
    truth knows jtx is a judge and von Brunn is a registered Democrat, truth gave us this fantastic explantion, what a smart fellow he is, bringing so much value to the table. Without you we wouldn’t know Obama is a usurper, thanks, your brilliant imsight are great. Have you considered writing for “The Onion”?

  29. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

    If he knows that claims are false, he can possibly be accused of suborning perjury, and be good with ethical complaint against him.

  30. avatar
    richCares June 27, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    As for jtx the judge, right wingers often use “arguments from authority” to give creditability to their views. They make up titles that infer they are authoritative. Ii is usually total BS, based on jtx’s past comments here, there is no way he ever was even near a courthouse. He lied, that is obvious!

  31. avatar
    Mark June 27, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    When someone calls themself a patriot, hold onto your wallet.

  32. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 27, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    Now jtx you’re saying you are a returd Judgeand you are saying this now after months of posting? Why from reviewing most of your posting I can see no inkling of a judicial background. Please post your background to prove your statement. For now you are “Techdude 2”

  33. avatar
    richCares June 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    I’m not twisting his words, I am calling him a liar! Yes a liar (LLS = Lying Sack of S___)

  34. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    nbc:

    Nope – not a separation of powers thingy at all. Merely a matter of the man being no eligible under the Constitutional requirement of holding the office.

    Since he is most likely ineligible, impeachment is not in order (since he is not legal) nor does he legally hold the office as he has never shown he is a natural born citizen but has instead stated repeatedly that dad was a Kenyan and his newly born son was governed by the Brit laws also.

    There will most likely be criminal charges that will eventuate once the courts have their say.

    I would think you pro-O guys would like to have a legal President … but you apparently don’t care or are so shortsighted that you can’t think.

  35. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    I don’t give a rat’s rear end whether you’d like that info or not but let’s face it – you haven’t shown me the Constitutional clause where I’m re

  36. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    ‘pologies for the interruption but which part of the Constitution requires that I do that for you??

    At least the O-borter certainly knows about the NCB clause which is required for him and which he has never demonstrated the satisfaction of.

    So far as I know that clause does not apply to me – but then again perhaps you’ve not read it and don’t understand that.

    As for “proving” anything to you (or any of your dim-witted pals hereon) – that’s fruitless since you luv your guy so and facts don’t matter.

    There might be some rational reason why you guys don’t wish to know that he is ineligible (or not) consclusively in a court of law. He’s never shown anything about the issue but has spent a lot of money (including yours and mine) in tippy-toe-dancing about the issue keeping anyone from seeing any eligibility data.

    Perhaps you should re-direct your inane comment to the O-borter. He’ll have to show us his first, guy!!! And he hasn’t!!!

  37. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    richCares:

    Yes, you make it very clear that you are a retarded judge … thanks for the clarification.

  38. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    A wonderfully childish comment racosta. You MUST be an O-borter supporter … which I presume is something like a soiled jockstrap, eh???

  39. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    Mark:

    For a change of pace, stop and think – our putative president claims to be both a Constitutional lawyer and a teacher thereof. Are you trying to pretend that he is not aware of this little Constitutional hiccup??? If he’s ineligible – and I believe that will be proven in court – does that not make him guilty of various crimes??

    Or perhaps you guys on this pro-O site don’t mind having a criminal in the office … is that your story?? Why not have this settled legally so we all know the truth and can get back to real life???

  40. avatar
    jtx June 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm #

    racosta:

    No, I’d rather pop in here from time to time to see you guys squirm as you begin to realize “your guy” is not Constitutionally eligible … and that has very little to do with the BC (assuming he was born in HI, etc. as he claims – and we KNOW he never lies, right???)

  41. avatar
    richCares June 27, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    here comes da judge! the liar pops in again and thinks he made a point.
    “and we KNOW he never lies, right???”, well we know you do. You are a lying sack of S___, Sure you are a 57 yr Judge. What will you do when this case is dismissed, become a 58 yr judge?

  42. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 27, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    JTX, you are definitely NOT a “retured judge” unless you mean that you had a job as judging dog shows. Any 2nd year laws student can see that your posts here betray an appalling lack of understanding of the basic precepts of jurisprudence and of Constitutional law in our country.

    You make a mistake that is very common for lay people but never made by lawyers and judges. You assume that because a law exists, there is a corresponding legal remedy and an obligation of the courts to make a determination. People with legal training understand that laws are not self-executing and that the procedural rules are always determinative. In the case of Presidential elections, the Constitution very clearly puts the power in the hands of Congress and not the Courts.

    The fact that you do not understand the importance of standing and jurisdiction shows that you do not have legal training.

    I don’t fault lay people for lacking this understanding; it is complicated and not obvious, especially for people whose exposure to the courts and the legal process is largely through the media and fictional portrayals in television and movies.

    But no one with legal training would make the types of assertions that are scattered throughout your posts.

    So don’t try to put your b.s. over on the lawyers & law students who do follow this blog. It won’t work. You just make yourself look even more stupid.

  43. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    Nope – not a separation of powers thingy at all. Merely a matter of the man being no eligible under the Constitutional requirement of holding the office.

    Problem is that the Courts are prohibited from making such a determination since that power is explicitly granted by our Constitution to Congress. In fact, impeachment was reluctantly granted to Congress, for exactly these reasons.

    Since he is most likely ineligible, impeachment is not in order (since he is not legal) nor does he legally hold the office as he has never shown he is a natural born citizen but has instead stated repeatedly that dad was a Kenyan and his newly born son was governed by the Brit laws also.

    It is surprising to me to hear that a self professed judge is unfamiliar with the de facto officer doctrine which states that an officer who holds a de jure office (that of the Presidency) but for whatever reason is inelligible, remains the de fact officer and his act(ion)s are to remain valid. Once it has been established that the officer is inelligble and only then, can the officer be removed. Since Congress is the only way to impeach a president, they will have to make the decision of elligibility. A decision which they made on Jan 4th I believe when they certified the election results and qualified the President and vice President.

    Nothing really the courts can do here and the likelihood of criminal charges is even more remote than the likelihood of courts hearing this case.

    And so the problem for people like jtx is that the President is in fact a legal President until he has been found inelligible by Congress and impeached or fails to be re-elected or serves two full terms as a President.

    SO far JTX has shown no case law, legal arguments, precedents etc to support his case.

    Which I find hard to reconcile with his claim of having been a judge.

  44. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    Any thing you were trying to say here?

  45. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:16 pm #

    At least the O-borter certainly knows about the NCB clause which is required for him and which he has never demonstrated the satisfaction of.

    And yet, the constitution provides a remedy for this namely that Congress would have found him unqualified, and it did not find him such. Too bad for JTX’s argument but from the moment President Obama was duly elected and sworn in, the only legal way of having him removed as either a de facto or de jure president is through Congress. Since the courts lack any ability to change these matters, the lack of remedy and the inevitable lack of standing will continue to haunt those who remain unfamiliar with the Constitution.
    40+ failures so far.

  46. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    No squirming necessary since 1) the COLB shows him born on US soil and thus NBC 2) lawsuits continue to fail on issues on standing and remedy 3) opponents continue to fail to present any relevant evidence to show that President Obama is ineligible.

    No squirming needed, just attention to the facts. Silly me, jtx does not seem to be interested in facts.

  47. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    There is no evidence that Obama is a criminal, let alone ineligible. Now I can believe why some hold this faith inspired belief because of Obama’s policies but such do not rise to the level of ‘evidence’ that would provide for a foundation for a criminal complaint (note that a much stronger case exists against some of our earlier presidents).
    You may belief that he will be proven ineligible in court yet you have no proof, refuse to address any of the facts and have placed your hope that discovery may force the President to reveal some disqualifying position. Of course, even if standing and remedy were not obstacles to such cases to be heard, the lack of any evidence that the President is ineligible would lead to an easy dismissal.

    Too bad that such cases however will never be heard.

  48. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    I wonder how familiar our so called judge is with the de facto officer doctrine or the fact that quo warranto against a President is impossible due to the separation of powers, lack of historical precedent?

    So many facts exist that undermine any case our friend refuses to make that I find it rather amusing how he continues to hold faith that the President, somehow, somewhere, sometimes will be found to be ineligible…
    Now that’s faith for you when facts so clearly contradict it. Remarkable…

  49. avatar
    racosta June 27, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    “Squirming”
    it’s called projection, a major staple of right wingers. They always respond to opponents with these type of projections. Though they know very little about those they oppose, they make ridiculous assumptions such as “you libs love the messiah”, this comment immediately places them in the trash can of failed arguments. I have no idea why they come here other than to show their ignorance.

  50. avatar
    NBC June 27, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Since he is most likely ineligible, impeachment is not in order (since he is not legal) nor does he legally hold the office as he has never shown he is a natural born citizen but has instead stated repeatedly that dad was a Kenyan and his newly born son was governed by the Brit laws also.

    But the Courts cannot make the determination of eligibility since that is an issue the Constitution reserves for Congress. Thus impeachment remains the only way. Whether removing a de facto or de jure president, this is something the Constitution leaves up to Congress. Of course, the voters have their say in this matter as well.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Hey, I hold a BS degree!

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    jtx, it appears to be a universal hickup shared among all constitutional law professors, members of Congress, federal judges and historical Attorneys General.

    Earth to jtx: In real life, Obama is president.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    Expelliarmus:

    I really must take exception with your comparing jtx with dog show judges. I know some dog show judges and they are much more sensible.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    I assume the judge thing was just to point out that anyone can claim anything on an Internet forum, and deriding claims of those here who claim to be lawyers. JTX is no more a judge than I am.

  55. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 27, 2009 at 11:13 pm #

    Then you’re not a judge, jtx. You have not provided me with evidence that you are a judge, therefore, you must not be a judge.

    You have yet to provide me with evidence that you are not a slum-living 22-year-old college dropout still living in his parent’s basement. Therefore you must be, jtx.

    What’s the matter, afraid of actually being exposed for the fraud that you are? What are you hiding? After all, if you refuse to provide this information, you must be hiding something.

  56. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 27, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    I think those of us who really are lawyers are able to demonstrate it clearly simply by the quality of our discussion. It is fairly easy to recognize when a person is actually highly knowledgeable about a subject.

    It’s pretty hard to fool someone with real expertise in an area by pretending to be an expert, if the pretender doesn’t have the same knowledge base to work with.

  57. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 27, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    Yes, but I believe that the AKC does place great store in the ability of a breeder to document the entrant’s pedigree and purity of blood lines. For example, a dachshund whose was sired by a beagle would clearly be disqualified from entering.

  58. avatar
    NBC June 28, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    Perhaps JTX meant to say that he has seen all episodes of Judge Judy?

  59. avatar
    Gordon June 28, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    I’ll tell you, in all my years in law enforcement, a black man always needed more identification then anyone else. I never thought it would extend to the POTUS!

  60. avatar
    myson June 28, 2009 at 3:25 am #

    Jtx, if & its a BIG IF, you’re a judge with 50years experience you should either have coached the present litigants on how to beat standing by ensuring the right parties are b4 the court, OR you should have brought a case that can actually be heard b4 a court yourself or you should have guided the present litigants to friendly judge that would at least give them a day in court (i did not say or mean influence improperly a judge to go against the law or that a law be broken BUT you will have brother judges & you might be able to guess a judge that MAY be sympathetic to the birther cause)

  61. avatar
    myson June 28, 2009 at 3:31 am #

    “You make a mistake that is very common for lay people but never made by lawyers and judges. You assume that because a law exists, there is a corresponding legal remedy and an obligation of the courts to make a determination”

    Having seen Orly, Berg, Mario etc in action i believe your assertion here has been debunked, there are some lawyers no better than lay people!!!!.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    Orly is now claiming that Berg’s libel suit against her will be dismissed for jurisdictional problems. The lawyers here pointed out that problem immediately after it was filed. Orly writes as if this concept is part of her body of knowledge as a lawyer, but I bet somebody coached her.

  63. avatar
    richCares June 28, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    The “black man” is part of it but mostly “he’s a muslim” and “he’s a socialist” are more likely their driving points. They are driven by hate and fed with ignorance. Here’s a few examples.

    jtx “It will certainly come out in court before long”
    We catch jtx up making things up, then we catch him lying, then we laugh, then he comes back again to share more lack of wisdom with us. The only thing jtx has shown us is his penchant for delusion.

    truth “von Brunn was a registered Democrat”
    Besides being gullible for right wing lies, truth has a habit of spouting nasty insults whenever he has no valid argument. He continues using the “messiah” right wing talking point not realizing that is passé.

    Both often post links to WND, the least accurate news source on the internet, if Doc set a minimum age for posting, such as no one under 13 can post, then these two would be gone.

  64. avatar
    Mike June 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    if Doc set a minimum age for posting, such as no one under 13 can post, then these two would be gone.

    You mean IQ, surely?

  65. avatar
    HistorianDude June 28, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    Polarik is TechDude 2.

    jtx is, at best, TechDude 3.

  66. avatar
    HistorianDude June 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    For a change of pace, stop and think – our putative president claims to be both a Constitutional lawyer and a teacher thereof. Are you trying to pretend that he is not aware of this little Constitutional hiccup???

    For this question to be answerable, there would first have to actually be a “Constitutional hiccup” of which to be aware.

    100% of the available evidence indicates that there is no such “hiccup.” Therefore, your question is unanswerable.

    If you want better answers, then ask better questions.

  67. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 28, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    Are you trying to pretend that he is not aware of this little Constitutional hiccup???

    Any lawyer or law student with even a rudimentary understanding of Constitutional law would know that “natural born citizen” means the SAME as “citizen at birth” or “born in the U.S.” with the only known or recognized exceptions being the children of diplomats.

    Any lawyer or law student would know that citation to sources such as Da Vattel would not be acceptable to overcome decisional law such as the Wong Kim Ark case.

    It is precisely because Obama is a professor of Constitutional law that he knows that this claimed argument about the meaning of “natural born citizen” is merely an internet fantasy based on false premises and specious legal reasoning.

  68. avatar
    Bob June 29, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    …but if that’s true, then Obama ought to relish a trial to prove that he’s correct….

  69. avatar
    NBC June 29, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    Why? Should we now allow ourselves to be submitted to needless trials just to show that the facts are on our side? And then open up a flood gate of challenges?

    What kind of legal argument are you proposing?

    Geez..

  70. avatar
    Bob June 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    (It was sarcasm.)

  71. avatar
    NBC June 29, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    Sarcasm and birthers are sometimes hard to distinguish 🙂
    Sorry… Too much caffeine…

  72. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    richCares:

    Since you seem to pal around with Doc, please let him know that it is not “the Government” moving to dismiss the Kerchner case, but the defense.

    I realize you don’t know the difference, but it’s surprising that Doc doesn’t. Guess you all drink from the same Kool-Aid container, though.

  73. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    NBC:

    More of your ill-informed nonsense. It is not up to Congress to override the Constitution.

    You might try American History 101 sometime – and actually read the U. S. Constitution.

    Your blather is just that. Eligibility – or not – is a legal issue and indeed there are courts who can and will make that determination in spite of your skewed notions of how things work.

  74. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    richCares:

    It’s “da’ judge” as in “here comes …”. Apparently you don’t realize that the eligibility issue of the O-borter is a legal issue and think you’re still voting for him … and, who knows, perhaps you are. Are you an ACORN member?

  75. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Isn’t that just semantics?

    ELIZABETH A. PASCAL
    Assistant U.S. Attorney

    RALPH J. MARRA, JR.
    Acting United States Attorney

  76. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Doesn’t matter a whit whether you “know” anything or not (and the evidence is heavily on this latter side).

    The BC is merely a necessary but not sufficient issue to the eligibility matter; and since you believe you are so litigation-capable, be sure to follow the ruling (you know what that means, right? – maybe not) in the Kerchner case.

  77. avatar
    kimba June 29, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    You should try 6th grade civics. Pres Obama became the Legal President on Jan 20th. It is immaterial if he was eligible or ineligible. He IS legally the President by the 12th amendment. The only way to remove him is by impeachment by the Congress, by running someone against him in 2012 who can get more votes, or for him to become ineligible by the 20th amendment. Imagine, jtx, on Jan 20, 2017, you’ll be able to shout “Obama’s Ineligible!” and at last you’ll be right!

  78. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    More of your ill-informed nonsense. It is not up to Congress to override the Constitution.

    Begging the question. It is up to Congress to rule a President Elect qualified. Once the Congress establish qualification, there is no real option for review as this is now a political question.

    Your blather is just that. Eligibility – or not – is a legal issue and indeed there are courts who can and will make that determination in spite of your skewed notions of how things work.

    The courts may very well make a determination of eligibility but not with respect to our sitting President. As Doc explains, a judicial ruling on eligibility may be possible during the primaries, and certainly by the losing party before Congress has certified the election and ruled the Candidate qualified. However, in case of President Obama, there is no role remaining for the judiciary as they cannot force Congress to impeach a duly elected President and they will not provide an advisory opinion. Since plaintiffs will continue to lack standing and remedy, there will be no resolution of this during President Obama’s first term.

    Since the Constitution declares Congress to be the one to qualify a President via the 20th Amendment, the Courts have limited options here. Which is why so far over 40 lawsuits have failed to gain a hearing beyond initial motions and a complaint.

    Since you claim to be a retired judge, I would encourage you to make a better reasoned argument, preferably supported by case law, precedent. As I and others have shown the hope that a Quo Warranto against a president will be successful is contradicted by the facts.

  79. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    Kevin Bellas:

    I certainly needn’t prove anything to you or you suck-ups on this site.

    From watching your posts, however, it is plain you don’t know your elbow from your …
    whatever and just simply have too much time on your hands!

    Perhaps your mother has left you with an inattentive babysitter.

  80. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    The BC is merely a necessary but not sufficient issue to the eligibility matter; and since you believe you are so litigation-capable, be sure to follow the ruling (you know what that means, right? – maybe not) in the Kerchner case.

    So far the ruling in the Kerchner case seems unlikely to break with the tradition. As to the BC being necessary but not sufficient, that is begging the question since by any and all reasonable standards, natural born means born on US soil.

    Those are the simple facts. If you believe there exists other requirements and you believe you can defend them from a legal, legislative or Constitutional perspective then I suggest you surprise us.

  81. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    From watching your posts, however, it is plain you don’t know your elbow from your …
    whatever and just simply have too much time on your hands!

    Perhaps your mother has left you with an inattentive babysitter.

    Wow, another one of these content free postings in which jtx decides to attack the messenger rather than the message.

    I guess the message must have hit a nerve?

  82. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    jtx: Are you an ACORN member?

    When lacking arguments, a popular method to distract is to change the topic. Well done my friend. Needless to say, the statement that Natural Born citizen is a legal issue is interesting since the courts have held that natural born means born on US soil. From a legal perspective the facts appear to be at odds with your perspective. Worse, lacking legal standing and remedy, it is unlikely that a lawsuit will be successful.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    jtx: “I certainly needn’t prove anything to you”

    And based on prior experience, jtx would be unable to do so, should the need arise.

    jtx is what I call a “dancer”, like a boxer who has no punch, but dances around trying to keep anyone from hitting him, trash talking as a distraction.

  84. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    A beautiful analogy.

  85. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Expelliarmus:

    Don’t let your supercilious solipsism continue to overwhelm your common sense. Merely voting vor the O-borter and loving all of his efforts to date does not offer much hope of your knowing much of anything.

    At least Doc (sometimes) throws a little humor in with his insults. Yours are just tiresome trivia.

    BTW, I haven’t the slightest intention of providing “proof” of anything since this – despite what you think – is anything but a court of law. It is merely a Kool-Aid court that hasn’t the intelligence to realize the implications of having an ineligible POTUS (and doesn’t wish to find out whether he is or not)!

    That’s the real travesty of you and your “lawyers & law students” on this blog (I shudder to think how our jurisprudence will be overwhelmed when you all get out of grammar school.

  86. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    myson:

    Your “advice” is appreciated for all it is worth. I’m sure. (Gee, I shoulda’ hadda V-8)!!

  87. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    BTW, I haven’t the slightest intention of providing “proof” of anything since this – despite what you think – is anything but a court of law.

    Doc was right, a dancer not a boxer… Quick to make claims but unwilling or/and unable to support them in a legal or logical manner.

  88. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    NBC:

    Guess you can’t read as the O-borter himself has told everyone (except perhaps the illiterates) that his daddy was Kenyan and that he (THE ONE) was governed by the same law as daddy – BNA of 1948.

    You might go read that and the Kenyan Constitution as well as the US Foreign Affairs Manual of Citizenship. Seems a possibility “our boy” may not even be a US citizen and if so that would make him ineligible for a LOT of things.

    Not to worry, though, this has nothing to do with any sort of “conspiracy” but with the law. I suggest you enlighten yourself before you return

  89. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    Doc:

    You’ve done a shocking mis-read of what I’ve said. Nowhere did I ever say he was not president. What I have said is that he is not eligible under the Laws of our country (including the Constitution).

  90. avatar
    jtx June 29, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Expelliarmus:

    Boy – are YOU misinformed (been slopping around in this site too much I’d think). Go read up (and on more than just this site since it is heavily biased and offers huge chunks of misinformation)!!

  91. avatar
    racosta June 29, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    based on these comments, yes that 13 was IQ.

  92. avatar
    richCares June 29, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    you say “the Government” moving to dismiss the Kerchner case, but the defense

    what is at the top of this suit and what is the following:

    Plaintiffs:
    CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., LOWELL T. PATTERSON, DARRELL JAMES LENORMAND and DONALD H. NELSEN, JR.

    Defendants:
    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES CONGRESS, UNITED STATES SENATE, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RICHARD B. CHENEY and NANCY PELOSI

    the “defense” is the Government, well with an IQ of 13, you probably couldn’t read this.
    like I said, IQ of 13!

  93. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    Guess you can’t read as the O-borter himself has told everyone (except perhaps the illiterates) that his daddy was Kenyan and that he (THE ONE) was governed by the same law as daddy – BNA of 1948.

    Sure, how does this matter?

    You might go read that and the Kenyan Constitution as well as the US Foreign Affairs Manual of Citizenship. Seems a possibility “our boy” may not even be a US citizen and if so that would make him ineligible for a LOT of things.

    Having looked at the US rules, it is extremely unlikely that Obama is not a citizen and given his natural born status, he also remains eligible to serve as a President.
    My suggestion to you is to expand on your suggestion and do some of the necessary homework to further your case. Or, are you going to dance away again claiming ‘this is not a court’?

    Not to worry, though, this has nothing to do with any sort of “conspiracy” but with the law. I suggest you enlighten yourself before you return

    now that’s ironic as it is not I who has shown some inability or unwillingness to show familiarity with law.

    Is this projecting? Fascinating possibility.

  94. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    There is no evidence that he is not eligible and the fact that Congress has ruled him qualified is somehow of a problem to your position.
    If he is president then he can only be removed through impeachment per the US Constitution. You may have heard of it?

  95. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    Go read up (and on more than just this site since it is heavily biased and offers huge chunks of misinformation)!!

    Note the absence of ANY supporting evidence. Wishful thinking is not a logical argument my dear jtx.

  96. avatar
    kimba June 29, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Heh jtx, don’t you remember saying this 2 days ago?
    jtx says:
    June 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm
    “Since he is most likely ineligible, impeachment is not in order (since he is not legal) nor does he legally hold the office as he has never shown he is a natural born citizen”

    “does not legally hold the office” is what you said 2 days ago. Geez, short term memory loss? No way you ever went to law school. A shocking mis-representation of your own words. Shocking, I tells you.

  97. avatar
    Gordon June 29, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    Poor jtx

  98. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    I rechecked the Foreign Affairs Manual and found that if Obama were born, as the data suggest, on US soil, he is a US citizen. In fact, while the US recognizes the fact that people may have dual nationalities, this does not affect the US citizenship status.

    What exactly did you have in mind here?

  99. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    In fact the manual provides an answer to “subject to the jurisdiction”

    a. Simply stated, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means subject to the laws of the United States.

    b. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court examined at
    length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based and, in particular, the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. After doing so, it affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization. The Court concluded that:

    c. Pursuant to this ruling, it has been considered that:
    (1) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that
    (2) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United
    States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its
    jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the
    United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United
    States.

    But I am sure that some as knowledgable as you would already be familiar with this.
    So what am i missing?

  100. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 29, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    What I have said is that he is not eligible under the Laws of our country

    It is your opinion that he is ineligible, but the powers that be (in this case, the electoral college + Congress) have already determined otherwise. You wish that there could be a court case to litigate the issue further… but the Constitution does not allow for that.

  101. avatar
    richCares June 29, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    jtx says “be sure to follow the ruling (you know what that means, right? – maybe not) in the Kerchner case.”

    that goes for you too, but when the dismissal occurs you will do what? (reject your own advice)

    You have never given us details of your winning case, why is that?

  102. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 29, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    Let me try to explain, in simple terms:

    1. The reason that the “defense” was given repeated extensions of time to file a response — thus delaying the filing of a response — was so that “the government” (US Justice Department), could make a legal determination of whether it was legally bound to provide a defense to the various named defendants.

    2. After being granted the requested extension of time, “the government” decided that it would, indeed, take the role of “the defense” for every named defendant.

    3. For what its worth, there was never any question that “the government” would defend Obama – it was Cheney & Pelosi that required some extra thought & analysis. (I think it was clear that a defense was required; I just think that the US Attorneys office needed to do what we lawyers call a “conflicts check”)

    4. In any legal action involving Obama’s capacity as President, in any way whatsoever, Obama IS “the government”. That is, Obama is the Chief Executive, at the head of the executive branch. No matter how you try to parse things out, that is the current reality.

  103. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    Even worse

    SEC. 401. A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
    (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality shall
    not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States: Provided further, That a person who has acquired foreign nationality through the naturalization of his parent or parents, and who at the same time is a citizen of the United States, shall, if abroad and he has not heretofore expatriated himself as an American citizen by his own voluntary act, be permitted within two years from the effective date of his Act to return to the United States and take up permanent
    residence therein, and it shall be thereafter deemed that he has elected
    to be an American citizen. Failure on the part of such person to so return and take up permanent residence in the United States during such period shall be deemed to be a determination on the part of such
    person to discontinue his status as an American citizen, and such person shall be forever estopped by such failure from thereafter claiming such American citizenship;

    President Obama returned well before reaching 23 to the US.

  104. avatar
    Epectitus June 29, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    From watching your posts, however, it is plain you don’t know your elbow from your …
    whatever and just simply have too much time on your hands!

    Perhaps your mother has left you with an inattentive babysitter.

    Spoken like a “retured’ judge w/ 50 some years of experience. (end sarcasm)

  105. avatar
    Bob June 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    tRSoL is hilarious:

    “It appears that WorldNetDaily’s recent article concerning public comment on this case was, at the very least, misleading.”

    An article on WND was misleading, you say? Surely never!

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 29, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    As I have said before “[you] go read” means “I cannot or am unwilling to present an argument”. Expelliarmus has presented numerous arguments here, and I’ve never seen any of them refuted.

  107. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 29, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    jtx, you cannot have it both ways.

    IF Obama is president than he is immune from prosecution and indictment; and he cannot be removed from office by any process other than impeachment.

    IF Obama is not president, then you just misrepresented yourself.

    Choose 1.

  108. avatar
    Gordon June 29, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Does the Justice Department defend Obama in all of these cases?

  109. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 29, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    You’re funny, JTX. You actually believe that you’re a lawyer, and that these lawsuits actually have merit. What will happen when the Kretchner case is dismissed.

    Furthermore, you have yet to prove that proving your birth place to the Federal Government is any different than proving your birth place to the Federal Government. And you have yet to have one shred of admissible evidence that Obama is anything but a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.

    All you have is a novel legal theory that the only case that you can cite where it was the MAJORITY opinion that upheld your claim was the Dred Scott case. Do you really want to argue that Dred Scott was correctly decided, and that the 14th Amendment didn’t overturn Dred Scott? Even your hero, George W. Bush, says that the Dred Scott Decision is one of the worst in the history of the United States Supreme Court.

  110. avatar
    Bob June 29, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    No. In most of the cases, Obama isn’t even sued, as noted on Dr. Conspiracy’s docket.

    Taitz thinks she has filed a suit against Obama (she has attempted to file several), but that will be dismissed on July 13 due to faulty service.

    Last year, Kreep/Taitz filed a case against California’s Secretary of State and Obama; there Obama was represented private attorneys. And, in Berg’s two cases, Obama was represented by private attorneys.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    The attorney in California was acting pro bono (no fee) according to an interview on Politico.com.

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 7:49 am #

    In all the new cases. Once someone becomes President, every federal prisoner with too much time on their hands, sues them.

  113. avatar
    Bob June 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Looks like the district court won’t be accepting “public input” after all.

  114. avatar
    nbc June 30, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    Bummer. I heard some ‘birthers’ had spent quite some time and effort only to have their work shredded.

    Which explains why keeping alive this silliness is distracting them from forming a real opposition to Obama’s policies. Clever indeed.

  115. avatar
    kimba July 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    Here’s what someone wrote at plainsradio about her letter to the court:

    “Who are these family secirty matters people? Obots made to make us look stupid sending letters to that Judge I bet! The lady at court acted like I was a simpletin for sending a letter. she said anyone would now its prejidishul (I dunno that word).

    Well I didn’t now and don’t appreciate court people actnig like Im a fool.”

    This shows me how shameful the birther leadership is in taking advantage of painfully under-educated people who have managed to figure out how to get onto blogs and comment sections on the internet. This woman is barely literate. Easy pickins for some of the con-artists promoting the birther nonsense. I’m sorry, but if this is the intellectual level of the average right-winger, then no wonder this country went to hell in a handbasket while they had the power for the last 12 years.

  116. avatar
    Bob July 6, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    Apuzzo requests two more weeks to respond to the motion to dismiss.

    While an additional two weeks is reasonable, it is somewhat ironic considering Apuzzo opposed the government’s request for an extension based on the imminent threat of Obama instigating a nuclear holocaust. Guess that isn’t quite as pressing now.

    It is also a little funny considering how Apuzzo bragged that he anticipated the government would move to dismiss based on lack of standing and failing to state a claim (duh; everybody predicted that one). One would think if the government’s motion was so predictable, it would have been possible to pre-write a portion of the opposition….

  117. avatar
    Vince Treacy July 10, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    All of Kerchner’s claims against Cheney, Pelosi and Members of Congress are completely barred by the Speech or Debate Clause. Even if he had standing, which he does not, the claims would be dismissed.

    The Clause prevents any and all questions for Members about their official duties, so they cannot be deposed, required to answer interrogatories or to make admissions. The claims have to be dismissed.

    The background is available in the Constitution Annotated pdf, starting at page 134:
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf

    It is spelled out beginning at page 18 of the government’s defense:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-271-272-Defendants-Motion-Brief-to-Dismiss

  118. avatar
    Bob July 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    The really funny part is that not all of the plaintiffs even wrote to Congress! You can’t complain Congress ignored you if you didn’t contact it.

  119. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    And if they did seem to ignore you, sue them for the 42 cents that it took you to mail that letter. It’ll only cost you $140 to file it! I’m waiting for the outcome of that case.

  120. avatar
    Bob July 10, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    One would hope that that plaintiff really isn’t after the 42 cents; that it is just an attempt to game the system by claiming a monetary loss as an effort to create standing (and thus claim a right to discovery).

  121. avatar
    brygenon July 18, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy, given how both you and the U.S. Attorney were pained by the prolix nature of the 87-page complaint, you may find amusing this comment from Charles Kerchner, at Apuzzo’s blog:

    Mario has to squeeze his brilliant 150 pages of brief into a 40 page condensed soup “can”, to use my analogy. That is the limit stated in the federal regs as to what they allow for the opposition filing and the Judge has refused to grant Mario’s request for leave and permission to file a larger opposition filing and brief than 40 pages.

    “150 pages of brief”?

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Yes, I am positively howling over that one.

  123. avatar
    brygenon July 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    Looks like he removed the comment.