Vattel's writings on the sovereign and sovereignty and the need of the sovereign to respect fundamental laws in which Vattel included the nation's Constitution, and also when the People no longer owe obedience to the one claiming sovereignty if he breaks the Contract with the People:
The Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758, Vol.1, Chapter IV:
§ 46. The Prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws.
. . . The prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws. But when the sovereign power is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws of the state, those laws show the prince the extent and bounds of his power, and the manner in which he is to exert it. The prince is therefore strictly obliged not only to respect, but also to support them. The constitution and the fundamental laws are the plan on which the nation has resolved to labor for the attainment of happiness; the execution is intrusted to the prince. Let him religiously follow this plan; let him consider the fundamental laws as inviolable and sacred rules; and remember that the moment he deviates from them, his commands become unjust, and are but a criminal abuse of the power with which he is intrusted. He is, by virtue of that power, the guardian and defender of the laws: and while it is his duty to restrain each daring violator of them, ought he himself to trample them under foot?
and then in section 51 ....
§ 51. But the nation may curb a tyrant, and withdraw itself from his obedience.
. . . As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression. This truth is acknowledged by every sensible writer, whose pen is not enslaved by fear, or sold for hire.
Contributed by:
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
Kerchner: On all citizens inalienable right to defend their liberty -- It is the inalienable right of all citizens of the nation to stand up and protect their liberty right and support and defend the Constitution, the contract made by the People to which they agreed to be governed by, and the fundamental and supreme law of our land, against those who claim sovereignty over it and claim to be above it and the law, and/or attempt to betray, trample, or ignore it. Our first recourse of course is to the legal system and courts who in our system are supposed to be the legal guardians of the sanctity and supreme sovereignty of the Constitution, protecting it from the usurping of powers not granted to the other branches under our system, and/or their ignoring the Constitution and thinking they are sovereign to it. The courts are there to speak out via taking legal cases brought to it and making legal decisions to correct the offenders when the Constitution has been wronged. The courts should not shirk their responsibility. It is time for them to stand and support and defend the Constitution as they took an oath to do so. It is not a time for them to hide behind bureaucratic legal technicalities to find a means to hide from their duty to the Constitution and dismiss hearing the merits of a case. I seek that remedy with my lawsuit to demand a legally binding definition by the federal court, and if necessary which it likely will, by the Supreme Court, as to what the framer's intended it to mean for the Article II term "natural born citizen" and also to demand hearings from Congress thereafter to use that definition and the history of our Constitution, and then acting together, the Supreme Court and the Congress will remove the usurper from the Oval Office in a legal and constitutionally proper way, as they shall determine. And at that point in time, if SCOTUS and Congress declare Obama to be an illegitimate President and they cannot enforce their decision that he is constitutionally ineligible to be the President and order that he should step down, and the Usurper refuses to leave the office, I believe the People will enforce the step down and leave order, with the help of the military if need be. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so to the best of my abilities. History will record the events of these times. ~~~ Charles Kerchner
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Bocca Della Verita ~ Mario Apuzzo Esq
I enjoy the universe of ideas and a sound mind and body. Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732-521-1900 • FAX: 732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
• A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Putative President Obama Born in Hawaii
• Read the Kerchner v Obama/Congress Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court
• Summary of Latest Court Activity - Kerchner v Obama & Congress
• Supreme Court of U.S. Docket Report - Kerchner v Obama & Congress
• Summary of Lawsuit/Complaint and Link to the Complaint-Counts/Charges
• Article II 'natural born Citizenship' Means Unity of Citizenship at Birth
• Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States
• Natural Born Citizenship Requires Both Parents to be U.S. Citizens
• Law of Nations - The Legal Book Used by the Founders & Framers to Write the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution to Unite the 13 Free & Independent Sovereign States into a More Perfect Union
• The Law of Nations & Natural Law is U.S. Federal Common Law on "natural born Citizenship"
• An Article II "natural born Citizen" is Not the Same as an English Common Law "natural born Subject"
• Obama When Born in 1961 Was a British Subject as Was His Father and Obama is Still a British Protected Person and Citizen to This Day
• Neither the 14th Amendment Ratified in 1868 nor the Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 makes Any Person a "natural born Citizen". Those acts and laws create "Citizens of the U.S." but NOT "natural born Citizens of the U.S."
• Why the "natural born Citizen" Clause of Our Constitution is Important and Worth Preserving
• What is Putative President Obama's Current U.S. Citizenship Status?
• Obama's Lack of Constitutional Eligibility - The 3 Enablers
• HR 1503 Pres Candidates Constitutional Eligibility Docs Bill for Future Elections Now Has 12 Signers
• AZ HB 2441 - State of AZ Presidential Constitutional Eligibility Verificaton Bill with Numerous Sponsors
• SC Bill 3389 - State of SC Requires Conclusive Proof of Natural Born Citizenship Status for Pres Elections
• NH Bill 1245 - State of NH Bill Says No More Hidden BC Records
• The Blog Rules-Please Read
• Read Atty Apuzzo's Writings/Briefs @ SCRIBD.com
• How You Can Help the Cause
53 comments:
Charles if you act quickly, you can call in:
http://freedomfighterradio.net/
Call in now:
1. Dial (724) 444-7444
2. Enter Call ID #18976
http://freedomfighterradio.net/
You must hurray.
You still have time.
They are waiting for you
+1 724 444-7444
66.212.134.192 18976# 240 518 010#
Excellent piece Charles. I'd hope that Mario can include some of these thoughts in his opposition to the MTD by the "prince's pals".
The Saga Continues:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102950
eBay seller claims certified Kenya birth certificate
Says copy sports embossed seal, signature of physician
The seller claims in the latest post on eBay that the birth certificate contains the name of Obama's mother and father, the name of the physician present, along with a signature, and that it is "an exact copy of the original 1961 Mombasa hospital birth certificate. Includes 2009 embossed seal of the hospital in Mombasa. Contains a 2009 signature from staff that issued this copy with embossed seal."
It also allegedly includes a "right footprint."
You should check this out!
It's tempting to think this may be a real BC but there are also points to consider floating around on the web that give one pause ... including data in the WND story.
Another report links "Smith" as a possible person trying to be paid for a kidney donation that never happened.
Hard to judge but I'm willing to see the YouTube clip if and when.
This individual claims to have what we all have been seeking for the longest time; The Smoking Gun Absolute Evidence that unequivally disqualifies Obama as being able to serve as POTUS. The Kenyan Birth Certificate of Obama's Birth is the Holy Grail we seek. I would think the response from our side would be tremendous if it were in fact true. I do wish his claim is true, but I would not want hold too much hope. African Press perputrated numerous stories on Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate but they turned out to be hoaxes. I hate when someone perputrates a hoax. It is a big let down when one becomes known. If this individual has Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate, he should stop playing games, by God Release it and finish Obama once and for all.
Hi James,
I agree with you. And if he made it available to some trustworthy and credible independent document examiner organization and equally trustworthy members of the press (if there are any left) who would then publicize the results and not bury it, in such a way that it would not get destroyed or "lost", and it turns out he does have the "holy grail" as you describe it, he will make more money on book and movie deals as to how he got it than he ever will by trying to sell it on eBay. Some groups online have offered as high as $25,000,000 (I think I saw a number that high but others have offered $1,000,000 for sure) for a certified true and correct copy of the vault records in Hawaii. I think that offerer would pay at least that much for this proffered document, if it is real. This all could be an O-Bot dis-information campaign to make this issue look silly. I like everyone would hope he really got the real deal. Only time will tell. In the mean time I won't get my hopes up to high about this and will keep moving forward with the lawsuit I started in the federal courts to get to the documents in Hawaii and Kenya and Occidental College and elsewhere, to get the truth, and the legal definitions and answers and solutions to the fraud in the Oval Office that way.
Charles
Charles:
Agreed, certainly ... but think of this -
If this really is a certified copy of the KBC, that means that it could be subpoenaed in a legal proceeding and pressure by the US State Dept. (Hillary notwithstanding) to reduce funds now given to Kenya would be a very big carrot or that country producing another; this individual could have this copy subpoenaed and failure to observe the subpoena would of course be punished.
If it is "out there" it will show up and in an appropriate forum.
If the person holding this purported BC reflects, he'd be well advised to make it freely available to a properly constituted court through one (or more) of the attorneys now bringing suit otherwise he may merely have to provide it under subpoena.
If it is not the real KBC then this person is guilty of serious fraud and that would certainly be determined in a court subpoenaed examination - and he'd suffer the consequences which would most likely include a good bit of jail time ... in which case he should quiet down completely and go back to Kenya (if that's whare he came from), taking the fraudulent document with him - or even destroying it (which would also no doubt draw punishment for destroying evidence).
Should he make the evidence (real or not) available to the court, he would be doing the entire country a definite service - and quite possibly even himself. At any rate he has now put himself "on the hook" whether he intended that or not. He really has fewer options that he originally may have thought about.
Charles/James:
BTW - we are using "he" consistently but Joseph Farah has said he spoke to the person and referred to the person (several times) as "she".
I would hope that Joseph may have explained to the person how in fact his options are far fewer than she seems to suppose.
Charles:
Also in Doc 27-2 the defense in several places intentionally mis-states the plantiff's claims stating that (paraphrased) "... Plantiffs allege that President Obama ... has not furnished them with "credible, objective, and sufficient evidence" proving he was born in the United States ...".
In fact, that was NOT what the Plantiffs stated since they were stating that he had not proven his eligibility under the Constitution, not that he was (or was not) born in the US. The location of his biorth is not genuinely an issue - his eligibility is. Trying to "flip" the case to where "proof of US birth" is the issue is nothing but a cheap trick of the defense.
Yes, the underlying premise in Kercher's suit is that Obama is ineligible to be the POTUS and has not proved his eligbility. Kercher does question whether Obama was in fact born in the US. The defense seems imply that this is the burden that allegelly must be met. However, this not completely true. Kercher and Mario have stated numerous that proof that Obama was born in the US in necessary component but not a sufficient component to ultimately prove Obama is in fact eligible to be POTUS. This is because of the citizenship of Obama's father and the provision of the British Nationality Act in which Britian apparently had a claim on Obama at the instant of his birth due to fact Obama's father was subject to that act and any children he had would have subject to act as well.
WARNING: OFF TOPIC
DON'T FORGET TO
SHOW UP AT YOUR LOCAL
TEA PARTY TOMORROW!
THE PRESS SHOULD BE THERE
Just got your posts James and JayJay. You guys are sharp. Good points.
James, a slight correction, the lead plaintiff's last name is spelled as KERCHNER, not Kercher, Kirchner or Kershner as I've seen here in this blog on occasion.
Like most people in general, Charles wants his name spelled right. I heard him say that before. In this case, I think I heard him on the radio say one time it's something about him wanting to make sure they hang the right guy if he loses this battle. But Mario and all the Plaintiffs don't intend to lose. And I think they will win. Thus, I think his neck is safe. :-)
M Publius Goat
Goat's Ledge
If you want some legal help you might want to try Gordon Watts in Florida. He has a website. http://www.gordonwatts.com/index.html
Gordon Watts is not a lawyer but has expertise in the law.
Gordon will often boast about his near success in saving Terri Schiavo in 2005.
Gordon is little weird but he really can pick apart the law.
I don't if he would be willing to help but if anyone can pick apart the Motion of Dimiss, Gordon Watts can.
Just a thought.
James, let us..., and goat:
Actually I do know that Charles' last name is Kerchoo :-) - I'm just a lousy keyboarder. My 'pologies, all.
Surveying the defense MTD as thoroughly as possible is a good idea even though Charles and Mario have pretty well picked all the meat off the bones I suspect.
One thing that struck me as odd was how the defense counsel (after many, many months beyond the time normally available for preparation) spent a good bit of time whining about how there was just too much to respond to ... poor baby!!
I think that all these "anomolies" should be pointed out to the court so they can begin to sense, perhaps, that they are being played like a fiddle by the defense. And of course the standing thing the defense attempted to use was when the earlier action(s) were against a pre-election candidate, not a sitting elected one. The Plantiffs are a specific number of citizens and the action is not brought on behalf of any more generalized millions as the defense pretends so the parallel is not correctly drawn.
I think that will REALLY come to the fore if discovery is reached and Mr. Obama refuses to comply with court ordered subpoena ducess tecum - that would be a true nihilistic arrogance and should be anticipated. Because of this belief (mine) I'd think it would be a wise idea - if possible - to serve any subpoenas on HI, Occidental, etc. rather than his nibs. Also, that would make any attempt at "influencing the evidence" so subpoenaed that much tougher.
Also in the MTD the defense states than the Plantiffs "... claim that President Obama has failed to prove that he is ..." a nbc. That is not a "claim" but a statement of fact that the defense should have to refute by presenting to the contrary since the negative of such a thing cannot be proven. Only affirmative proof will suffice. Similar observations may be made of the non-Obama defendants.
As for specific injuries I'd think each of the Plaintiffs would be pissed about their taxes obviously increasing greatly when the man has not shown eligibility. Increased taxes certainly are not "generalized grievances" but very particular, pertinent ones. I also can't believe that the basis of injury of the suit needs to solely and exclusively affect only the Plantiffs. That's (as one constitutional expert I've read said) not just hogwash but extremely thin hogwash. The term "similarly situated Americans" as used by the defense is undefined and meaningless in this context since everyone is different and the Plaintiffs never stated a claim about that category but about "other concerned Americans".
Also, with an eligible President there would certainly be a "substantial likelihood" that the acts, treaties, orders, etc. obviated by ineligibility would no longer be subject to reversal. And with more congressional control it is very likely that many of the acts now attempted to be foist upon the populace (health care and cap-and-trade come to mind) would at least be lessened in impact if not completely altered by an eligible person.
The defense never addresses the points that possibly all acts of an ineligible chief executive would be null and void including Executive Orders, Treaties, appointments, legislation signed, etc. so that if ineligible he would be potentially subject to coercive forces from other states or collections of states such as Islamic ones. Perhaps the court shouldn't be scared by reality at this point though (or perhaps they should).
Actually I don't think the defense counsel should be paid for work on behalf of Mr. Obama since he was sued while still a candidate - but at least the "crocodile tears" might be drawn to the court's attention.
I hope Mario responds to the judge's letter striking the non-party letters (if that is necessary not to prejudice the court).
Good points Charles underscores also. I'll try to spend more time looking it over later ...
JayJay (redux):
Good point. I'll pass it on to Mario as feedback if he hasn't already seen your comment.
I also saw on the bottom of page 22 and top of page 23 that she says that we are accusing that Cheney did not object to the votes. No, the law does not say Cheney must himself object. We said the Cheney did not openly call for the objections to the votes after the votes from each and every state were presented and read. That is the requirement of the law for this process. And on the top of page 23 she states we did not explain what process Cheney allegedly denied them in the Joint Session. We did tell the defendants that in the complaint. Cheney did not follow USC Title 3 Section 15 which covers the process and procedures that must be followed by law in the counting of the electoral votes and the requirement therein to openly call for the objections to the votes from each and every states votes. Cheney failed to do what the law required.
As you say, cheap tricks and changes in wording by the defense. Atty Apuzzo is working on his opposition filing right now. So if any of you see any other cheap tricks being pulled in the defendants' motion to dismiss, please do point them out and make suggestions. Two pairs of eyes are better than one. And 20 are better than two in reading and re-reading the defendants' motion and looking for very subtle tricks and twisting of words and putting words into people's mouths, etc.
She should be charged with trying to deceive the court, imo. Otherwise she should apologize to the court for not fully reading the complaint.
Here is a convenient link to the defendants' motion to dismiss and their supporting brief to support their motion. Read it and re-read and point out more falsities and attempts to trick the Judge with slight of words.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
I thank you all for your contributions and feedback and suggestions. We the People will thank you. And the nation will thank you. We will ultimately win this. The People are slow to awaken. But I believe they are now awakening. They see Obama for who he really is. A deceiver and a fraud and a usurper in the Oval Office. A supporter of dictators. The truth and our Constitution, backed by the People will ultimately remove him. Of that I am certain.
Again, thank you.
Charles
"Actually I don't think the defense counsel should be paid for work on behalf of Mr. Obama since he was sued while still a candidate - but at least the "crocodile tears" might be drawn to the court's attention."
Yes, As Mario and Charles have stated in the past, Obama should not be entitled to have the government (DOJ) represent him because he was sued just before he became present. Obama should be required to hire private legal counsel. Therefore, any defense from the government should not be valid or allowed because Obama is not entitled to it. The Government can only come to defense of Congress, Chaney and Pelosi but not Obama. Obama must hire private legal counsel.
I think I recall when Clinton was threaten with impeachment, he had hire private legal counsel to defend himself and could not ask the government for help.
From New Jersey Attorney's Office website:
"Acting United States Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr. is proud to represent the federal law enforcement interests of the people of New Jersey and the country."
Marra should not representing Obama but "The People" of New Jersey.
Citizen Wells posts about the Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al case and a link to excerpts by Atty Apuzzo on the Chalice Show uploaded to YouTube about the case.
Citizen Wells blog post about Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit
Goat
One thing you have got to remember is that at no point are you asking for the overturn of the election. Let the results stand what do you care. Hear me out the democrats won. What you are merely asking for is proof of eligibility of the president of the United States of America. The man is not eligible as his father is not or was not a citizen of the United States of America at the time of his birth. This is an open and shut case. Barack Obama knows right now as he has studied this issue well over the past few months that he does not qualify according to the Founding Fathers. The one thing you have got to realize through all of this is that the imposter is a con-man and in my opinion and in the opinion of many people an out and out psychotic. a hitler if you will. They will impeach this man if they possibly can it is just a matter of time or maybe his term will end before they get all of the evidence. OK let's review.
1. The imposter is not eligible no matter where he was born.
2. The man suffers from psychosis and delusions of grandeur and that in and of itself is reason enough to remove him even if he were a natural born citizen.
3. He has deliberately hidden his past because it has numerous links to criminals and criminal behavior which will al come out in the not too distant future.
You'll have a good one.
Hi, all - Hope you are all celebrating the birthday of our country since perhaps by next year you may not be able to do so.
Further points re the MTD in Kerchner:
1) Defense mentions the "nbc" issue and then states that "... Plantiffs raise a bevy of Constitutional claims against President Obama that are predicated on that basic argument ...". This is a misstatement of fact since some of the Plantiffs' claims are not against Mr. Obama but against the non-Obama defendants for not doing their duty as required by the COnstitution. The record in court should be clarified so that the defense does not have the false claim to point to and it was done in the portion relating to Mr. Obama as though that were the only item involved in the action. It was not.
2)Prior to getting into the "ARGUMENT" part of the MTD, counsel actually launches into the argument by making the movement to dismiss AND the dismissal with prejudice due to immunity. I'm not a judge, but does this not get the cart before the horse and should not counsel's "ARGUMENT" portion preceed the haymaker movement to dismiss??? Just curious.
3)To begin the ARGUMENT portion counsel makes the circular argument that the court does not have jurisdiction since the Plantiffs lack standing. Counsel gives possibly illustrative of what the "two strands" of standing (prudential and Article III) after going through the admission that under this "facial attack" all of Plantiffs allegations must be taken as true by the court. With this in mind, the court obviously has jurisdiction to ascertain the issue of fact as to whether or not Mr. Obama has a BC by directly subpoenaing it from the putative state of birth as well as subpoenaing the other documents (Occidental College records, etc.) - all of which have been publicly admitted to exist by the parties "holding" them from public view. Such obtaining of evidence and determining the facts therefrom is not a lengthy nor a difficult task. The more time-consuming part for the court, I suspect, will be hearing the arguments of the law that applies to those facts and making its ruling (or kicking it upstairs if judicial cowardice prevails - which I do not think will happe3n here). Counsel merely mentions Article III standing with a paucity of illustrative examples but does not tell the court why any of them should apply in this case - and they do not seem to I'd think. Prudential standing is given even shorter shrift and is mentioned seemingly in passing with few illustrations after telling the court that such is, after all, "... a judicially-created doctrine that "embodies 'judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction'"". Sounds a bit like "finders-keepers" from the court's standpoint.
#4 later ...
(cont.)
4)Counsel argues (after claiming "no standing" as above) that the three elements "injury", "causal connection", and "redressability" must be met by Plantiff yet the examples given do not seem to clearly illustrate parallel points. Perhaps dicta is helpful by way of example but it certainly should be backed by more rigorous case law that is on point since many of the cites given here are on wildly different qualifications of actions that the present one. While the Plantiffs wish to see the Constitution correctly followed they are certain to "obtain" injury-in-fact from having a President who, if not eligible, has done grave harm to the taxpayers of the country, to those in the armed forces, and to many other citizens who do not yet realize the import and effects on themselves of these circumstances. But the key point is the Plantiffs are not suing directly for the rest of us, but for themselves. None of the defense examples are persuave to any great degree in illustrating the point the defense attempts to make. The "grievances complained of" are indeed particular to the Plantiffs and pretending otherwise is shallow stuff. The fact that President Obama represents the interests of others can hardly be separated from the interests of the Plantiffs - and it need not be. The law does not require or infer that "injury" must affect solely the Plantiffs but may just as well affect others also. If conclusively proving his eligibility to the Plantiffs also has the ancillary effect of doing so to others, so be it. I'd think that would be a worthwhile effect and one that would benefit the President himself - and his legacy for history.
5)Plantiffs do not "... demand that President Obama meets the citizenship status ... to protect that broad interest ..." (defense had stated the claim that the President represents the broad interest of U. S. citizens). Well and good - but that's NOT what the Plantiffs demand but that he has not yet conclusively shown to anyone an eligibility under the law of the land - the Constitution; the "broad interests" he might (or might not) represent are immaterial to that eligibility under law.
6)The man's citizenship - or lack thereof - is an issue of fact which the court can easily enough determing by a few well-placed short-turnaround subpoenas (HI and Occidental college to mention some - but there are certainly others). While certainly the Plantiffs (and others) may live their lives in fear and deprived of liberty, etc. as mentioned in the Complaint, there is not so much a "challenge" to the President's eligibility as there is a pointing out in the Complaint that he has never shown himself to BE eligible and the Constitution requires that as a Presidential prerequitite though normally it would not be so much in question as in this instance.
#7 later ...
(cont.)_
#7) Counsel mentions Quo Warranto but says approximately zero about it, oddly enough. The defense then launches into a "discussion" of non-Obama defendants and makes a huge point of emphasizing "other concerned citizens" - apparently to try to bolster the point that the Plaintiffs are bringing the action for all Americans. As previously mentioned, it is the Plantiffs that are bringing this action on their own behalf. The fact that others may or may not benefit from any ruling is immaterial - and a specious argument since it does not undergird the defense claim at all. In fact, it is not the Plantiffs who demand that the eligibility be shown, but the U. S. Constitution. Mr. Obama has stated in writing, sworn and signed by him under jurat notarization that:
"I am a natural born citizen of the United States ..." and further under the same document and conditions "I do solemn swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, as to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office."
Could this sworn, notarized statement signed under jurat rules by Mr. Obama be a little white lie??? Certainly he should be able to factually demonstrate this - talkm as we know, is cheap. It is walking the walk that is the tough part. (from the Arizona Presidential Election Candidate Nomination Paper; ARS 16-242; dtd Dec 13, 2007)
8) The defense seems to edge into "immunity" and rightfully so since the claim they make is that all the defendants are superior to the Constitution and are free to ignore it or not at their whim. The naked arrogance of such a position is beyond belief and breathtaking in the extreme. So does that mean there's no 4th of July next year??? I think it was James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights and Father of the Constitution in the eyes of many) who said:
'Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.'
I still believe that to be a correct statement contrary to the puny "immunity" statement (not an argument) put forth by the defense. After all, at least non-Obama "constitutional immunity" In Article I Section 6 apparently applies to congressional "Speech or Debate" (note the caps) - neither of which are at issue unless one considers Sherlock Holmes "curious incident in the night" that, when questioned, he explained as "the bark of the dog" and when reminended that "the dog did not bark", he said something like "Precisely, Dr. Watson". In this case, congress did not "bark" ... and they should have per the constitution.
9) Counsel fails to note that Plantiffs had ALREADY "addressed the issue" through the representative branch - who ignored it. Is counsel, then, saying that a plea for constitutional redress to those in the non-judicial branches (which the defense characterizes as having no of requirement to reply) may be freely ignored even though it is a Constitutional requirement and not one that the Plantiffs have made up out of whole cloth? Does that not really clarify that there will be NO 4th of July next year??
More later ...
JayJay,
Excellent analysis and points about the defendants' MTD.
Keep them coming. Your points are excellent and right on the money. The defendants' attorneys thinks the defendants are above the Constitution and the law. With a belief system like that, we are in grave danger.
Charles
Page 1 Page 1
LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
NUMBER 62 YEAR 1958
ABOUT Citizenship REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
Considering: that need to be laws of citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia;
Given:
a.Articles 5 and 144 of the Constitution while the Republic of Indonesia;
b. Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia while With the approval of the Board of Representatives;
Decide:Setting: LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF citizenship INDONESIA.
Article 1
b.Who at the time of birth have any legal relationship with his father's family, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, with the understanding that the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia starts since the relationship included in family law, and that family law relationship was held before the person is aged 18 years or before
he/ she marries at the age below 18 years;
Hello Capedeh,
That Obama was adopted in Indonesian when his mother remarried and they moved to Indonesia and Obama became an Indonesian citizen and may have later in life likely traveled as an adult on a non-US passport, such as an Indonesian or Kenyan passport (but we cannot ascertain exactly which since all such records are sealed) is discussed on page 18 in our complaint. It is not the foundational and key part of the case, but it is in there and alleged by us. Obama has more citizenship warts and issues than a Brazilian Giant Toad. You can read the sections on Obama's Adoption and Obama May Be An Illegal Alien in the copy of the 2nd Amended Complaint on page 18 at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/
Thank you for your input.
Charles
Charles:
Please - don't insult the Brazillian Giant Toad and his fans!!
I note some other stuff in the MTD that I'll probably have to comment on.
I attended the Tea Party in Tallahassee today. About 800 people showed up. I brought "Where's the Birth Certificate" sign from WND to the event. I was the only one that had an Obama eligiblity sign. I got alot of attention. I was asked about my sign by many. Many were aware of Obama eligiblity problem. Some even had "Where's the Birth Certificate" bumper stickers. I specifically told people to watch and read up on the Kerchner Vs. Obama lawsuit.
Just a Note about the motion to dismiss:
Mario in designing his counter motion should and is taking the defendent's motion to dismiss and spreading it out to come up with ways of defeating it.
You should get as many people as possible t study the motion and finds ways of defeating it.
You should also send it to other attorneys but it is possible that some who look at it on this blog may be attorneys as well.
The motion can be defeated with 100s maybe thounsands of people looking at and trying to defeat it.
Ultimately is will up to Mario and his legal expertise on what advise has merit and can be worked into his counter motion.
Good Luck and God Bless
James,
I did not buy one of those signs yet. But I did order a couple packs of the glossy printed on one side post cards "Where's Your Birth Certificate" birthday cards that WND.com is selling. Wouldn't it be great if Obama got 1,000,000 plus of those on or before his "birthday" in August. They are very inexpensive too. $4 for a pack of five which includes the S&H. See the WND.com store for the details.
Where's The Birth Certificate Birthday Cards
How about sending an extra million of the cards to the members of Congress. If we each buy some extra ones and mail one to each of your U.S. Senators and House Representatives and ask them to wish Obama a happy birthday but also ask him "Where's His Birth Certificate", the real long form original one which shows the name of the hospital he was alleged born in and the doctor or mid-wife who attended the birth. I think this idea has legs. I'm going to do it.
Charles
The old saw and cliche of volunteer efforts is that we need your time, talent, and treasure. You all here have been giving your time and talent. I have not asked for help with the latter until now. But paid media is expensive. Thus, I have now put up an opportunity to help with the third leg of the triad to help further publicize this case. This initial campaign will be to raise funds to place paid advertorials in the Washington Times National Weekly prior to the decision day of 20 Jul 09. Synergy at Work! If we all do a little we can accomplish a lot! If we all give a little we can gather a lot. Check out the new site and feel free to circulate it on various blogs you frequent:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Thank you all for all your help. You are true patriots.
Charles
JayJay,
Great analysis and input. I am incorporating many of your thoughts into the opposition brief. Keep your analysis coming.
Mario
A QUESTION FOR MARIO and Kerchner...???
Some food for thought.....
What happens if the response to the Motion to Dismiss is PRECEDED by another Motion to Strike by the Plaintiff's.....since the Complaint must be construed as true , seek to strike any defense of for example Obama ??? by lawyers without authority, or authority in question....???
Lets assume for a minute that you ask the Court to take Judicial Notice of the "statement" admitted by Obama by HIS web site that his "birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948" which fact alone violates NBC...regardless of where he was born...refer to SR 511, and Judicial Notice this too...and lead to Certifying question below...
A Motion to the Court to either define NBC or Certify the Question directly to the Appellate Court or USSC for a definition of NBC so that either the complaint may stand, or the MTD will stand....
Federal Jurisdiction exists or the Quo Warranto Statutes as found in the DC District Court as provided by Congress would not exist....and maybe this Court must transfer this case there for Jurisdictional purposes...
Standing IS A DOUBLE EDGE SWORD is it not....
Counsel for the defendants need Standing too....are these Justice Department Attorneys acting under the authority of Eric Holder???
If so this is a problem...because they are acting pursuant to a voidable AG in concert with a member of the Obama "team" (trying to describe these players [accessories] without insult)
Cheney, and Pelosi, and Congress had duties they were obligated to perform by law, and failure to act in accordance with the law is NOT an IMMUNE act....Drunk drivig to the capitol to vote does not get immunity.....[For Example: Cheney]neither does failing to ask for objections as the law requires during the Vote count constitute a Congressional Act, for it is not the Character that has Immunity, but the Character of the Act tht has Immunity....A discretionary act is immune but the failure to act accoring to law...well thats wrongful or unlawful,,,and is not immune...otherwise Judges would be Immune for raping or robbing litigants while they had there robes on during their usual course of business....yes and some have tried this and failed....
squinlivan:
Some great thoughts there!! All of these sorts of things are just intended to trigger thought processes that may not have been considered or not considered in the way discussed ... and I've no doubt some of them may potentially help give the Plaintiffs seeds for thought.
I'll get back to the MTD later, but in the meantime, what about the situation where a Kenyan citizen (& governed by British law) goes to a foreign country (HI in this case) and impregnates an American minor female, then finally marries her. Does that not make the woman obtain the citizenship of the husband upon marriage and therefore any children that may result also have that citizenship?
After all the Brits are pretty stubborn about their idea of once a Brit always a Brit unless that citizenship is formally renounced.
If dates work out correctly, would that not make our putative president a Brit??? Maybe British records for same WRT Obama (both Sr. and Jr.) should be requested via the State department.
BTW all, there is a 4,096 character size limit in each post on Blogger so I had to parse mine. (I was asked why I had multiple posts and thought the answer might help others save a little time).
JayJay et als:
Your comments about Obama (II) being a British subject are correct. I have written about that in this blog. And it is in the case at the bottom of page 17, "Obama's Father Not a U.S. Citizen".
Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen:
Obama is a British Citizen
See page 17 in the case at:
2nd Amended Complaint Document
But keep the ideas, comments, and suggestions coming. Your inputs are all helpful.
Hi all,
Link to the new Advertorial about Obama not being constitutionally an Article II Natural Born Citizen and in support of this lawsuit. This Advertorial will be on page 11 of tomorrow's (6 July 09) issue of the Washington Times National Weekly.
Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen Advertorial placed in the Wash Times Natl Wkly
And of course, if you wish to help place the Advertorial in more issues. Here is the link to help get that done. Advertorials placed with funds derived from this publicity fund raising campaign, will be so noted in the "Paid for by:" by line at the bottom of future insertions.
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Feel free to circulate the above URL in any and all blogs you visit. And twitter it to the world. Maybe even that Twitter judge will see it then eventually since he follows Twitter per his statements. :-)
Thank you all for your help and support.
Charles
Mario and Charles....
Mario First: What has occurred with this "election process" can and will repeat itself...See..Roe v Wade with standing and mootness issues...if the Courts do not act, to both uphold the aw as well as honor their respective oath then who will?
Charles: If my understanding is correct, you are potentially subject to recall in the military service...and as the defendants claim..or have claimed this is a subjective and not imminent threat to you...re: Standing...
I'm going to pose the following question...[regardless of my belief]
What if Charles based upon his information and belief, and Obama's own admission about his birth being "governed by the British Nationality Act..." that Charles submit to the Chairman of the Joint Chief's and the DOD that he will not honor any Attempt to Recall him into service by orders that come from Obama...this lays out your position....and allows a "verified statement to the present Court"...that you are personally under threat of "recourse" from a Usurper...
This standing issue is difficult, because the defendants are going to constantly claim that the Plantiff's have no personal "injury in fact," well just violating your rights while not actually causing YOU harm will be their ACE..????
NOW FOR THE TIN FOIL HAT TRICK...
There are more than 300 million of us American's supposedly out here...
can just one of us come up with a reasonable fact justified purpose for why these 535 so Called Central Government Leaders all seem to be either acting in concert or refusing to directly confront, what can only be described as constitutional misconduct regarding this election and their actions....
Seiously this is a puzzle we need to solve?????
Mario, the Plaintiff's cite Warth v Seldin...but within this case it also says:
"Page 422 U. S. 505
When a governmental prohibition or restriction imposed on one party causes specific harm to a third party, harm that a constitutional provision or statute was intended to prevent, the indirectness of the injury does not necessarily deprive the person harmed of standing to vindicate his rights. E.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 410 U. S. 124 (1973). But it may make it substantially more difficult to meet the minimum requirement of Art. III: to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions, or that prospective relief will remove the harm."
Maybe this is where some attempt to "clarify" the superior status of the Constitution "and it's flaw" of not having anyone or any entity responsible for ensuring compliance with NBC and using Marbury v Madison RE: nothing is superflurous (sp) and it all has meaning....because failure of the Court to hear and provide relief is not providing an election according to law....which makes us no less than the third world countries we "rail" about like we're so much better....
So if NOT the COURTS, this same event can occur again in the next election and still there is NO SOLUTION....because the Courts find "no personl direct harm to any entity for conduct contrary to..or in avoidance of the mandates of the Constitution???
To what effect is "checks and balances" if it becomes merely a catch phrase without Effect!
Can the Courts refuse the right to petition for allegations that factually show NON COMPLIANCE with the mandates of the Constitution..???
Please ask the Court this question
Is it harmless error for Congress to both ignore the people's complaints and to allow an election against both procedures and mandates of the Constitution?
squinlivan said...
-----------------------
NOW FOR THE TIN FOIL HAT TRICK...
There are more than 300 million of us American's supposedly out here...
can just one of us come up with a reasonable fact justified purpose for why these 535 so Called Central Government Leaders all seem to be either acting in concert or refusing to directly confront, what can only be described as constitutional misconduct regarding this election and their actions....
Seiously this is a puzzle we need to solve?????
--------------------
The answer is that the Party leadership of the DNC, RNC, and Socialist parties ALL put Constitutionally ineligible, non-natural born citizens on the ballot last year for President. They let party power and DC politics trump the U.S. Constitution. That is why the RNC and Socialist Parties were silent about Obama. And that is why they are all still blocking any investigation of what happened last year. They are all guilty and in the CYA mode right now and hoping that "We the People" do not catch on to what they did and throw them all out in 2010.
Charles
The new article ("advertorial") is excellent and well-directed.
Let's hope the judges in the Kerchner case plus the justices in SCOTUS read the article.
It is clear and understandable for most readers I think. Great work!!
hi charles; let me tell you this one too. You need not to look further about is he or was he an Indonesian. Look on his book when he was claimed to be an Indonesian by adoption by Lolo Soetoro; Dreams From My Father. But you must watchout too for most Indonesian but me will defending him because on the same bill there's a statement that he were above 5 years old when he was adopted; however the key point is on article 1.b that I sent to this forum. By reading his book, all indonesian includiong the current president and all his rival in Presidential race knows all along and use this for benefit for Indonesia. For me I doing this shall be called treason for Indonesian but I just want to return the favor that your country men (not government) give to my country men the chinese who lives in Indonesia that was being gang raped, murdered, burned alive during May riots 1998. Mark my word if this BHO not fall or keep continue as your pres then he will not copied what Hugo Chavez done instead he shall be Soeharto. Read about him for Soeharto in fact the man that he wanted to become. I don't wanted your countrymen suffer for 32 years long and your country becoming second Indonesia.
once yopu moved to Indonesia then you were under Indonesian rule and therefore if he was adopted by Indonesian man then he shall become Indonesian citizen for he moved to jakarta in 1967. The child right especially citizenship, religion etc by Indonesian law is under the parents or guardian wish. Since the child cannot make their own decision. Therefore if his parents renounced his nationality in Indonesian nationality he is or was indonesian citizen. After 18 he could said he wanted another nationality therefore renounced his indonesian nationality but if he not and moved to another nation and never heard the plead of naturalization then he still an Indonesian. I cannot tell you by much now for I alone in the enemy heart and soil. Read further on my writing on Israel Insider title Obama lied and hidden truth.
PS: If you can et Sarah Palin on your side then all the news paper mus make their own investigation. I once write to her about this but her aid said' the election is over now. But I write the second letter after her resignation and said,"this ios not about election but this is about saving your nation."
I beg you sire and all man and women on this forum to be able to get her and united your self. On your west flank DR taitz and Alan Keyes seek to open occidental college record. Mark my word; if one of this prevailed then his time as POTUS nearly over. HAck their computer if you had too.
#10) (to continue re the MTD) ...
Backing up a bit to near the start of the MTD the defense says "Plaintiffs
claim that President Obama has failed to prove that he is a natural born citizen ...", which is somewhat of a misdirection of logic. The defense statement implies that the candidate actually tried to establish his eligibility to run for President and merely failed to do so (presumably, by inference, to his opponents). In fact he has never even TRIED to show he is eligible at all, but did (in the AZ paperwork mentioned in comment #7 above) actually swear in writing signed and under a jurat notarization that he was a "natural born citizen" and was "qualified" (elibible) under the United States constutional requirements. This is not an attempt to prove that he is eligible as a NBC, but merely a statemtnt that he IS one. There's a great difference and the Plantiffs have stated (correctly) that B. H. O. has never proved to any sufficient legal authority (or the public at large for that matter) that he does, as he claimed, meet the constitutional requirements. He's merely tried to flim-flam everyone with false items such as the well-known COLD of his own website.
Since that defense statement is false, all of the claims stemming from that by the defense are false also; e.g., that the Plantiffs "... raise a bevy of constitutional claims against President Obama that
are predicated on that basic argument". Predicated upon a false statement this claim and others depending upon it must be false also.
There are quite a number of such "malstatements" (my term) throughout the MTD and I've only touched on a few. The Plantiffs need to be vigilant so that the malaproprisms or eggcorns are not "ooched-in" to the record. As another example in about the next paragraph after the above, counsel throws in "... Plaintiffs allege that the
Congressional Defendants have abridged a variety of their
constitutional rights ...". Well, NO, that is not what was alleged at all but that those defendants violated the U. S. Constitution by not performing their so-prescribed duty. By doing so the defendants certainly did abridge and violate a variety of the constitutional rights of the Plantiffs (and others) no doubt - but that was not what the action charged. Merely another attempt to "ooch-in" some of those little malstatements/eggcorns.
The defense continues right on to state things about the malstatement just given to try to make it appear that Plantiffs were asking Congressional Defendants to correct the (as the defense phrased it) constitutional rights the Plantiffs claimed - which was not the case as it was the violation of the Constitutional requirement by Congress that was involved and not specific individual Plantiff's rights only. More "ooching-in", you see.
Immediately after the above paragraph in the MTD, counsel dropped this little gem:
"Defendants now move to dismiss this action in its entirety
with prejudice because Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain this
suit. In addition, the Congressional Defendants alternatively move
to dismiss this complaint with prejudice because they are immune
from this suit."
Presumably the defense felt that it had planted enough malstatements to fool the court but I fail to see how the actual Plantiff's claims were not correctly stated or addressed by counsel but rather the malstatements were the targeted items.
I wonder if it is possible for the Plantiffs to move at this point to Dismiss the MTD as being unresponsive to the Plantiffs' original Pleading due to things such as the malstatemtnts just mentioned (and others later)???
#11) (cont.) ... now back to things like "jurisdiction", "standing", and "immunity" ...
Certainly SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction over the finding of facts such as are required to determine the truth in this action since they typically don't like to dirty their hands with such mundane dirty work but wish to oversee and critique the work of lower courts. Simple court action such as promulgating subpoenas to a few parties; e.g., HI BC folks and Occidental College officials would be about all of the "heavy lifting" required of the court. In addition, both of those entities have indicated they have the original complete records involved, so FedEx-ing (or other fast shipper) should not be either time-consuming or expensive.
After that, should the court feel timid about the law involved and deem the facts so determined necessitated the court to pass the case (or the buck) up the ladder for SCOTUS judging, that could certainly be done after fact finding - depending upon what those facts might be.
As to matters of "standing" (either Art III or prudential) a couple of things come to mind in relation to "injury". The actions taken by any President affect at the very least the Plantiffs in this case (not even mentioning any ancillary effects on other citizens) in matters such as increased taxation, altered basis of Census taking from that called out in the Constitution (and benefitting various minority groups while being run by a non-Constitutional group)just to mention a couple. These and other things as well will be altered to the benefit of the Plantiffs if the determination of ineligibility is made.
Keep in mind that the earlier malstatements by the defense indicate a misunderstanding of the particulars of the case and so the claims the might make about "standing" of any sort are - at best - speculative and most likely not applicable to the Plantiffs' action. After all, the court is not being asked to consider tort claims nor those of excessivew interest rates being charges ... far from it. The issue is far more seminal than that and deserves both serious - and expeditious - consideration.
The defense has used the bleatings of "complexities" and "too much stuff" and "legal representation must be decided upon by the parties" as though they had not already had an excessively beneficial amount of time to respond and yet we find them undertaking their efforts with no new legal counsel at all but counsel that bitterly complains of, in effect, "too much work" or words to that effect. Isn't that what our tax dollars are (wrongly) paying the counsel for??? Why the bitching??
In fact, why isn't the defense required to show how they are "injured" by the case brought by the Plantiffs? After all, none of them know the vital statistics (or perhaps even the name or citizenship) of the man involved so what injury to them is being claimed? For that matter, what standing do they have to defend this person - whoever he may be.
If he is, indeed, not eligible, should not that fact be determined as quickly, if possible, by the fact finding and - from those facts - if his ineligibility is clear (let's say his BC shows Kenyan birth or the facts show, perhaps Indonesian citizenship rather than America) would his taxpayer-funded government-counsel not be immediately dismissed - or at least penalized for bringing a frivolous defense to court?
#12) (cont.) ,,,
Defense counsel claims that "... Plaintiffs allege that if President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then irreparable harm will come to the “stability of the United States of America, its people, and the plaintiffs.”.
While that is no doubt true, that is NOT what Plantiffs claim but rather the fact that he may very well be ineligible for the office he now occupies is what the harm originates from. This seems to be another of the malstatements intending to pin the tail on the donkey of the BC so that producing it like magic, the claim can be put forth - "... see, a BC - he's a NBC ...". It is eligibility not the producing of or content of a BC per se that is the be-all and end-all of the eligibility matter. And the ruling of law would still need to be made if the discovered facts are sufficient to show eligibility or lack thereof.
And, again, it's not the Plantiffs demanding the Obama prove his eligibility but it is the Constitution. Since Obama actively sought the position in the election and claimed under sworn and signed, written oath that he was a NBC and that he had fulfilled the constitutional requirements thereof. The Plantiffs are merely asking, metaphorically, "show us the money" since talk is indeed excessively cheap.
Counsel states Plantiffs "because they do not conclusively know the President’s citizenship, they are
“forced to live their lives feeling unsafe, insecure, and in fear for their peace, tranquility, and prosperity,” presumably along
with every other American who shares their view. Another malstatement since other Americans may (or may not) share their view nor is that the issue nor is his "citizenship" but rather his eligibility for the office - the Plantiffs have that view and that is the viewpoint from which they are generating the point.
As for "usurping", that is what the action is all about and if the fact finding clearly shows that to be true that is one set of conditions and certainly it would be more that just the Plantiffs or merely Americans that would be injured but many citizens and the governments in other countries. It is something of interest to not merely US citizens, but it is the Plantiffs who have lodged the Complaint to protect themselves and their own especially.
Rather than go through all of this involved rigamarole, one wonders why the Defense Counsel doesn't merely advise Onama to grant free access to his records rather than put everyone - including himself - through this continuing nightmare. Does he perhaps think that he will succeed in overcoming his role model Abraham Lincoln's advice that:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."??
One would think that history might be easier on his legacy if he acted responsibly before circumstances get any more out of hand if he has any ethical feelings at all.
#13 (cont.) ...
So the defense counsel reads the constitution as allowing a "petition for redress" which the Congress - being superior to the Constitution - is free to ignore??
REALLY???
I had a sneaking suspicion that there were some in this country who have always wished that were so (and that they fervently believed that and acted accordingly) but I didn't realize that even lowly toilers in the Justice Branch also realized and believed that. What have we come to ... mob rule??? Dr. Franklin might say "I told you so"!!
Defense Counsel seems to be adopting the position that "other concerned Americans" are of no importance which is comedic since it is the Plantiffs asserting their rights and merely noting in passing (since it seems to have been forgotten within many parts of our government) that there are, indeed, other citizens who are rightfully concerned about the eligibility issue.
Throughout the MTD counsel takes the position that it is the Plantiffs who are "trying to compel" Congress to do such and such under Article so and so as though the citizens are somehow taking an unrightful advantage of the poor Congressmen. In fact it is the Constitution that compels these individuals in the Legislative Branch to do these things and the Plantiffs are merely trying to point this out and try to help bring this about. Congress, perhaps, has the same arrogant view of being able to ignore the Constitution at their own whim whenever it is convenient for them. I see no such "convenience clause" in the Constitution but perhaps the good defense counsel could cite it to enlighten us?
Counsel makes only slight passing note of the Congregational action re McCain's eligibility yet says nothing further to explain why this was done for one man but not the other. After all, shouldn't Congress feel free to ignore a Constitutional requirement for both men rather than just one - or do we have here selective ignoring of desired parts of the law of the land??? Who picks and chooses which person to apply the provision to and which to ignore it for??? How is that selectivity worded in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 ... I forget. Is the media "notified" so they will not "misreport" the action??? Just curious.
And it was not the conducting of the congregational hearing that was being complained about, it was the calling for complaints (which was not done in violation to the law) that was complained about. That's merely another of those malstatements - and I've not even commented on all of them.
Also, it is not a matter of simple opinion "shared by others" (another of those malstatements) that is the issue on eligibility but the legal requirement which Mr. Obama has not demonstrated that he has satisfied despite claiming under oath that he has.
Walk the walk, big boy ... we've heard and seen you talk the talk ... SHOW US THE ELIGIBILITY!!!
Citing results in other eligibility cases vs Mr. Obama is disingenuous in the extreme since these were all directed at him during the campaign prior to the election. That ain't where we're at now!! He's now a "sitting President" and - quite likely - should not be. Snide recitations of previous cases declined (some questionably) for procedural reasons isn't at all helpful since being a "political issue" no longer offers the Defense a valid excuse (no matter how much it hurts).
Plantiffs DO meet the injury in fact (one wonders what an injury in non-fact might be) and the members of the Defense Counsel team (even if that's the entire Justice Department set of attorneys) might do well to understand that their own positions might be in jeopardy if ineligibility is determined legally ... but perhaps that's why such a stubborn, dog-with-a-bone insistence persists as well as the many malstatements.
#14) (cont.)
I wonder if the court could officially take notice of the potential conflict of those devising and pleading for the defense and if the eligibility interest does not indeed potentially affect them adversely. One would think that might be a conflict of interest and that perhaps disinterested counsel should be retained (and individually paid for, perhaps). At least the recognition of conflict of interest on the part of the defense should be made.
The defense notes "... the Article III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally.” but the Plaintiffs are saying that the "injury" here is the failure of the man who agressively sought and won the Presidency to ever show in any sort of conclusive, valid fashion that he IS eligible for the office. And THAT injury can certainly be addressed for the Plantiffs by the Judicial Branch in making a few simple findings of fact within its clear purview and then making a studied legal decision or appealing to a higher court to do so. Either the man is or is not eligible and a few well-placed legal commands to produce evidence to those entities holding the evidence in the form of the state of HI BC and Occidental College records would suffice, since they will likely show most or even all of the factual material required for adjudicating the matter.
It seems to me that the Plantiffs are not really seeking an order to Obama to produce any documents since the requisite documents are know to be in the control of others. In fact, any documents produced by Obama would have to be immediately suspect since they would be a potential admission against interest as he has already sworn to be a NBC and fully eligible under the Constitution - which is altogether questionable.
Obama's eligibility rather than "citizenship" is what is being challenged and it is the US Constitution that makes the eligibility requirement which, after all, Mr. Obama has sworn in writing and under oath that he fulfils. The position taken by the defense here seems to be another of those "we are superior to the law of the land" pronouncements that are replete in their MTD.
And, again, more malstatements as it is not the Plaintiffs having the right to challenge the eligibility - it is the law of our country that specifies eligibility. Does defense assert, then, that Mr. Obama is above the law??? The way I read the document, Art 2, Sec 1, cl 5 is "black letter law" and it has not yet been complied with ... and that's what the Plantiffs are seeking - no matter the softshoe dancing and or the folderol pronouncements of the defense.
It seems to me that what the Plantiffs are really saying is "if Mr. Obama is not eligible (no matter how so found) then he must no longer be the legal President of this country and I believe that quite possibly approximately 90% of the legal citizens of the country would agree once they stopped to think seriously and unemotionally about the matter.
After all - why WOULD anyone wish to have an illegal President since nothing could legally get done WRT passing laws, ordering the military, collecting taxes, etc. ... but perhaps the defense is saying that all those things don't matter and that the man they're attempting to defend is above the law (which no longer matters anyway). Oh, what the hell!!! Who needs laws anyway??? Wait a minute - isn't that what we pay obscene sums to 535 people (and their hirelings) for??? Maybe we can just get rid of them, too???
Isn't that really what the defense is promulgating?? Why do they not merely prevail on Obama to publicly and unequivocatingly authorize any entities holding documents relating to his vital statistics (including college records) to be publicly released.
#15) (cont.)
The prudential standing, considering the three components are not hard to understand unless one accepts the malstatements prevelent in the MTD.
For example, the Plantiffs are certainly asserting their own legal rights and interests and not those of third parties - which is very clear from their pleading. The pretense to the contary by claiming that somehow third parties are named or considered in their action.
The second component - despite the malstatements that somehow (unspecified) "generalized grievances" should be addressed in the legislative arena is patent nonsense. Eligibility is hardly generalized but very specific as to determining how it may be discovered and certainly was purposely and pointed ignored by the legislative branch be merely pretending there need be no following the Constitutional menu for that. Counsel now pretends that an equitable result would be to wait for the next election ... which is claptrap and nonsense as the same situation of eligibility as now prevails would prevaiul then absent the Plantiffs action. Continued ignoring of the constitutional flaw is not a correction of the problem.
The third component of prudential standing certainly does fall within the ‘the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.’ and it is absolutely astopunding that counsel would even attempt to shyster the court with such bravado. Clearly the Constitution speaks very clearly on the eligibility for the office of President - and this is certainly what the Plantiff's action is all about ... yet another malstatement I suppose (being gracious).
The defense claim that "... Plaintiffs allege that they have the right to be governed by a constitutionally qualified President is not the type of particularized harm that confers standing." we once again see the type of malstatemtnt that has applied throughout. Not only is there case law that shows that the "generalized grievance" mentioned does not normally warrant jurisdiction, it also does not say that is precluded and, in fact, is sometimes quite justified. And this is anything but a "normal" case. In fact, it is unprecedent in US history and that fact should be recognized by the court rather than accepting the pretense of the defense that it is like some sort of tort case or personal crash injury proceeding.
The disengenuous comments by defense counsel re voting being the proper mechanism to address the eligibility consideration is ridiculous on its face. Voting has nothing at all to do with the eligibility requirement (although hopefully that will be corrected before the next election) seem to be merely more of the malstatements intended to redirect the court's attention from the real issue of eligibility or lack thereof.
Additionally the defense has it quite backward when they claim that Plantiffs fail to recognize constraints (without telling us what they may be) that "... limit
the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ensure the proper
separation of powers.". Balderdash - it is the defense who is completely at sea in this assertion as the issue at hand is one of Constitutional moment and is MOST CERTAINLY proper in a court of law - particularly so since the other two branches of our government have (for whatever reason which we will not consider) chosen to ignore the matter or pretend it does not exist.
IT DOES EXIST AND MUST BE SETTLED IN A COURT OF LAW UNDER RULES OF CONDUCT AND RULES OF EVIDENCE!!
BRAVO Jayjay !!!
You ranted with passion and gave more FOOD for thought....
Your reference to defendants claims that the solution to this dilema IF it be one... "is the next election"... means they assert democratic RULE...which THIS COUNTRY IS NOT....
You're right, the next election will be more of the same, since the Two Parties have schemed together to estabish the rules for running and made it next to impossible for any but the well (rich) heeled (pun intended)to run for office...but this is a republican form of government and the majority do not get to push their will on to the rest or minority of us...WE supposedly live by the RULE OF LAW....
BIG POINT HERE: If I go to Court and I am assigned a Judge, that I discover is not "qualified" to hear my case I can have him removed, and some Judges resist this action and usually fail, BUT I have EVERY RIGHT TO FEAR this government official and can QUESTION his authrity to Act, and if he be less than qualified, he will be removed, In federal Court "they sometimes" try (offer you) to have a case decided by a "magistrate" rather than a Judge, and everyone has the choice to accept this less experienced official, or they can refuse the choice and seek a Judge....whats so different about the Presidency, are we to follow the rule of law, or can we use legal terms of art to dismiss the issue....
.....because "millions of people voted" and we dare not upset an election because of the havoc it may or might send into the streets....
Really, hundreds of thousands have already signed petitions (see WND) to have the eligibility issue addressed...but they have not taken to the streets...wreaking havoc...because they believe that our system of justice will address the matter and not side step it...
we are entitled to have the law, Constitution followed, and are right to fear an "UNQUALIFIED" President, just as we have a right to fear the magistrate rather than the experience of a Judge...
It is an injury to leave people in fear of the loss of their peace, and tranquility, and their right to be safe in their own country nevermind their own homes...
If the Courts can DISMISS their duty to finally DEFINE what is a natural born citizen and allow the Legislative branch to define what the Constitution means, like non-binding (non-binding means they know it has no teeth) Senate Resolution 511, then we do not need a Judiciary, they have made themselves superflourous...have they not....
squinlivan:
Excellent post and right on point I believe (and your term "rant" is quite correct, too).
This case is hardly the "usual" case seeking express or implied monetary- or rules-changing damages from the government as the result of some (ralatively) recent legislation ... say within the last couple of hundred years.
Instead, the case is an insisting by the Plantiffs that the government follow the basic, well-accepted, long standing law(s) of our country - the United States Constitution - which clearly and unambiguously has not been done ... or if so, the Defense can merely show where eligibility has been proven by their participants instead of presenting nonsensical claims about "immunity" from a contract long-ago agreed to.
Certainly, the Plantiffs' insistence is not a claim for "damages" in the sense intended by any of the precedents cited by the Defense ... instead, it is unprecedented and the equivalent of "damages" is the gross ignoring of Constitutional law.
I cannot see where "damages" or "injury in fact" as described and intended by the Defense even apply in this case since we are talking of a simple insistence that our government follow its own laws rather than make any sort of monetary or legislative award to the Plantiffs.
As you point out, if the government in the form of the Judiciary can dismiss such a simple, legally-grounded request by the Plantiffs by accepting the terms of art given by the Defense (which BTW are a pattern frequently used by the DOJ in more "normal" cases of tort, contract law, national secrets cases, etc.) then all are in trouble and not merely the Plantiffs. Cursory inspection of the Table of Authorities cited shows a reliance by the DOJ on many of the "old standbys" that have served it well in the past ... Blue Fox, ADAPSO, Lujan, etc. Sprinkling in the newer off-point Berg etc. adds nothing meaningful. This case is none of the above but a simple insistence that the government obey its own laws - which all of its employees (even temporary Census Enumerators) must swear to and which it has not done.
The "injury in fact" complained of (the government not following its own laws when it had agreed to in the original contract - the Constitution) is easily enough corrected in large part by the court conducting a simple finding of fact (the discovery mentioned earlier in one of my posts).
The correction of that "injury" is easily done along with the redress of the "injury" by conducting the requisite discovery and proof of eligibility. After that, the court could, perhaps, sua sponte state that it finds the Obama defendant either eligible or not eligible. That would certainly clear up the eligibility portion of the action and allow the litigation to proceed from that basis.
But if the court should decide to turn a blind eye ala the blindfold on the Lady Justice statue they will have given the lie to the principles of that statue - the "law is blind" concept - since they will be saying that the other two branches of government are beyond the reach of the Judicial Branch and that We The People can "go piss up a rope" as the French say (sounds more elegant in French as it is something like "pidisparaissent la pisse vers le haut d'une cord").
I believe that the Plantiffs as a part of the contracted party in We The People clearly have standing to insist that the contract be followed - and that the government (especially in the form of the Legislative and Executive Branches) have no "immunity" from following the law of the country ... which in the instance complained of is the demonstration of eligibility of Mr. Obama.
#16) (cont.)
Another malstatement by the defense is "... Plaintiffs allege that they have the
right to be governed by a constitutionally qualified President ...". While that certainly is true, what the Plantiffs are really insisting upon in nothing more than assiduous proof that the contract between the citizens and the government originally agreed to at the founding of the country has been followed in the case of Presidential eligibility.
The Plantiffs insisting that it is their right is not some new "right" created out of whole cloth ... it has existed as long as our country has - and the government only has to show that the eligibility clause has been met ... and not doing so is indeed a particularized "injury" though not one for which monetary or legislative damages are being requested.
The Defendants have plainly and obviously already decided to consciously NOT follow the laws of our country in this regard having considered it since the Senate SR511 shows there was some legislative notice of such a condition for one of the candidates.
Continuing with this brazen assault upon the contract document (the Constitution) is unconscionable as well as an affront to any reasonable person. It also smacks of arrogance and condescension much like that just before 1800 in France when one of the monarchs supposedly said of a disaffected populace "... let them eat cake ..." - and we all know (or should) what happened to good old Marie. I don't happen to like cake and would merely prefer - like the Plantiffs - to see our Constitution followed and our laws to not have Congressional noses thumbed at it.
This is a simple contract dispute between the two parties in which one of the parties is attempting to get the Judicial Branch of the second party to agree with the protection of the other two branches by allowing them to not follow the law (the contract) by use of artifice and "terms of art" which do not even apply to the contract violation.
If anything, the MTD should be thrown out as non-responsive to the complaint since it addresses things not in evidence in the complaint but rather other, more "normal" injury situations which are typically tortious or even producing material or services under contract with the government or preventing disclosure of national secrets. Those things are not what we have in this action - not even close.
I'll pipe down for a while now (though I'll have more later) and give others space to pitch in ...
I'll now switch over to the current thread which starts "Plantiffs obtain extension ..." for #17 and following posts ...
As JayJay has done, all those on this thread contributing ideas and comments on defeating the defendants' motion to dismiss, if you wish to continue that discussion, please continue it on the new 'extension' thread. This will maintain the continuity of this discussion. Thanks.
For convenience, here is the direct link to that thread:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/plaintiffs-obtain-extension-of-time-to.html
Post a Comment