I’m looking forward to reading your other posts….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html?hpid=topnews

This implies that the lawsuits against Obama were for the records. This is not true. All the lawsuits against him were to stop the election or stop the certification of the election. ALL of them. None even said that the case would be dropped if he provided the original birth certificate (which he may not be able to do if he lost it since Hawaii sends out only the certification).

However, there is a way to see the original birth certificate, which is much easier than suing Obama to get it (and as I say, he may not have it). Simply ask the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, to change the laws or the regulations to make the birth records of a president public documents.

Why do I mention this? Because I am certain that the original birth certificate in the files is an ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate.

Can’t Obama authorize the release of the original? No. Apparently Hawaiian regulations are now to send out ONLY the certification of live birth to everyone and in every situation.

http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

The other began on December 9th, and was updated to include Leo’s farewell to the controversy:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/09/supreme-court-turns-down-donofrio-appeal/

Leo’s position — that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii but still not a natural born citizen — was clearly stated and addressed in all the arguments, and his site was linked.

Here is the Olbermann video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31533909

It is interesting that World Net Daily, which is leading the birther charge, has actually confirmed that the certification is authentic: “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 JimBoyle please take note.

I posted far, far above on this thread that Obama is already in compliance with the bill. He has fully complied with the proposed law by ordering his birth certificate from Hawaii, and then releasing it to the press and public. Pulitzer Prize winning reporters at St. Petersburg Times Politifact.org have had a Hawaiian official verify that it is authentic. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

“[S]everal issues of his character remain for me personally and those questions are not now—nor will they ever be—derived from religion, race, or political affiliation.”

Hear, hear.

I didn’t vote for Obama. I didn’t vote for McCain either. My reasoning: The Democrats and Republicans are too well established. Only those with close ties to one of those two parties have a chance of getting elected.

Did I waste my vote? I hope not. The more people we have voting for a third-party candidate, the better chance we have for real CHANGE in the future.

I also limited my vote to those that are not lawyers. While I have many close friends in the legal profession, I don’t believe the Founder’s intended one profession to control all three branches of our government.

Madison’s declaration in Federalist 47 makes sense to me.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

My thoughts on Obama: He’s done some things I agree with, and some things that I do not. He’s kept some promises, and he’s broken some promises. Only time will tell if the voters made a good choice.

“His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth so doesn’t that end the debate?”

I wish it was that simple.

Thank you for your detailed reply. All of my relatives are Christian conservative Republicans from the Bible Belt of Texas and I can tell you that these issues will linger. Mr. Obama only encourages those problems with his secrecy and stunts, including the White House log refusal and FOIA pledge reversals. President Obama specifically pledged that the White House would be the ‘people’s house’ and open to them.

This thread has helped dispel some of the most absurd claims against Mr. Obama, however, several issues of his character remain for me personally and those questions are not now—nor will they ever be—derived from religion, race, or political affiliation.

The citizenship arguments have been rehashed a thousand times and its proponents have completely lost any credibility by this point. Orly Taitz is a flake. Her writing is juvenile and only marginally professional. She has become a shrew pretending to be an advocate, but her pleadings and legal arguments lack any substance. If there were anything to her claims, many lawyers would have joined her effort by now.

I don’t care for Obama’s policies at all and would love to see a real democratic scandal of the magnitude it would end up being if Pres. Obama were indeed a foreign national. I would be laughing for a month. But isn’t all of this speculation, just that? His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth so doesn’t that end the debate?

Disregard.

“We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world.” The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.”

Mr. Turley has been more than fair on this issue as to my litigation. When I pointed out to him at his blog that my case was not about the BC issue, he quickly corrected his original posting on the evening he was to go on Oblerman’s Countdown show. Later that night he also corrected Oblerman and let him know my case was not about the BC but was based on a genuine legal question. Furthermore, Turley said at his blog that the Supreme Court should make a decision on the merits so as to erase the hint of ineligibility and he mentioned Chester Arthur in this regard. The man has said more truth about this issue than almost anyone else in the mainstream media.]

Mr. Treacy,

Isn’t that natural born status the subject of the current debate?

While much of your commentary can be acknowledged as based on reliable information, some parts are just an opinion.

Can a judge order the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of Obama’s birth certificate? Would it not be deemed discoverable?

One thing I did happen to notice, that has not been adequately explained: Supposedly, in 2008 a request for Obama’s birth record was submitted. Subsequent to that request, Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” was made available on a number of websites. Is that “Certification” the result of that request?

I knew it, so there really is a liberal mind control ray. I should have figured.

Thanks for your reply, and I agree. Mr. Obama seemed to me that he would be completely open and transparent once in office and I was looking forward to as honest a president as humanly possible, because of the FOIA Misery I have gone through for almost 3 years.

However, Mr. Obama is infinitely better than Mr. McCain, Ms. Clinton, or any Republican at this stage. He is a thinker and perhaps he will reconsider some of his decisions regarding open, transparent government and some other issues. I clearly would vote for him again if he corrected some actions, because I think that redemption is important if people are sincere about admitting and correcting their mistakes.

If you’re running Internet Explorer:

If you can read this. Print it, and close all instances of Internet Explorer.

Open Internet Explorer to your home page.

Look up and to the right. Click on “Tools”; then Internet Options. The middle section of the “General Settings” tab is labeled “Browsing History”. Select “delete”.

You want to delete your Temporary Internet Files.

When they are all deleted, (this may take a little while, depending on the size of your cache) you may resume surfing.

If your running Safari; I can’t help you.

Good luck.

Byrne has posted a lot of incorrect stuff, like the travel to Pakistan story, so his credibility is a little discounted around here.

The print is not readable.

I agree that Obama should have released his grades et al before the election. Hell, I think we need an IQ test for candidates, with results published before the election. Has anyone batting a 100% in their hiring decisions? What makes anyone think we’re better collectively that individually?

Contrary to the statement made by Mr. Treacy, it is possible to be elected (or hired, as Mr. Treacy puts it), but still be denied the office for having failed to meet the qualifications.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”

XXth Amendment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html

As far as Senator McCain goes, the Senate’s non-binding Resolution holds little water.

Thank you for your candor and the addtional archived information.

One thing the President must be is a natural born citizen, and I believe McCain was natural born, but he did not release his birth certificate, and Obama did. The McCain birth certificate seen on the web showing his birth in Colon rather than the American Canal Zone WAS a forgery. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

We have already discussed a lot of this stuff last year on this site: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/

Hypothetically, if I wanted to hire you to represent me as my attorney in a legal matter, would I be within reasonable bounds to ask to see your complete curriculum vitae, including your LSATs, and then would you provide those documents/scores to me as a condition of my employing you?

Such a request is not much different from the U.S publics’ request to view the full CV of the U.S. President who—although I have a high regard for good, ethical attorneys—has a much more critical role in a secure Nation that any other public servant or private citizen. I realize that this should have been done before the election; however, Mr. Obama refused to comply then, although other candidates have often submitted their credentials, with varying degrees.

Thanks.

Ha! Thanks VT.

BVM did not dignify the question with a reply.

Here is the answer: Polarik is not at Ph.D, not a Doctor, and not even a real person. He is a pseudonym, an alias, a fictional character. He signed a court affidavit with twelve X’s. Twelve! XXXXXXXXXXXX. So help me! You can’t make this stuff up (YCMTSU):

http://goexcelglobal.com/share/Anonymous_Digitable_Expert_Declaration_signed.pdf

QUOTE I read that it had been proven that Obama’s so-called birth certificate was a fake.
A couple of bloggers who wouldn’t even give their real names (TechDude and Ron Polarik) claimed this was true, but they faked their analysis just like they faked their names and credentials. UNQUOTE

See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/polarik-is-back/

I think Dr. X is Superman’s the mad scientist nemesis, Luthor. After all, Obama admitted at the Al Smith dinner last year that he was in fact an alien, born on the planet Krypton and sent to Earth by his father Jor-el to save mankind.

WND actively solicits contributions. Dr. Conspiracy at the Obama Conspiracy refuses to accept contribution.

Vince, sometime you just slay me. Fattening. Now why didn’t I try that when I was in practice? After all the difference between tort and torte is but a scant vowel.

Thanks. We public servants know that, especially in politics, “red meat” is fair “game”, as well it should be because they serve us and we pay their salaries.

An honorable man does not back down from providing evidence when there is a claim or allegation against him, especially when those alleged aspects engender more distrust from those of us who want him to succeed and want to trust him. Any unresolved issues perpetuated by his secrecy will continue to drag down on his efficiency and effectiveness to do his job as president.

Based on my experience as an LEO and as a public servant who worked with corrupt and less than honest government employees, Mr. Obama is acting like an man who has something to hide or cover-up. By doing so, he appears afraid to make some tough decisions, perhaps because he knows he might be exposed as a fraud or more of a hypocrite than he has already displayed, at least to me and my credo. By avoiding those decisions, he is harming our Nation domestically and internationally (the torture issue).

That is not the reason, because the foreign exchange student story was an April Fool’s hoax floated on the web on, coincidentally, April 1, 2009:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occidental.asp

[Snopes does not allow cut and paste, so folks will have to go the link. I posted this earlier].

I will type very slowly now so that they can understand. Certificate and certification are synonyms. In small words, they are two terms that mean the same thing. The have a common Latin root: Certificare. A certification is a certificate that has been certified.

Hawaii no longer issues long-form or short-form birth certificates, vault copies, or certificates of live birth. The State has its original records on file. The officials have said that they have personally examined them. Under its state laws, it issues a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is by law just a valid as the original records and must reflect those records accurately. The form itself is prima facie evidence in any court proceeding. It prohibits alterations of “this certificate.”

If a lawyer in a tort or estate case needs to prove that his client was born in Hawaii, she makes a sound like a lawyer and says, Your Honor, I offer in evidence my client’s COLB. The birthers make different sounds, like Objection, it is a forgery, it is not the vault or long form copy, it is not the original record in the states files, it is irrelevant, immaterial, and fattening. The Judge makes a sound like a judge, and says Objection overruled.

“Disclosure of the rest of the information listed is not required by the Constitution. Failure to disclose, however, could have been a reason to refuse to vote for him in 2008 and to refuse again if he runs in 2102, but it does not bar him from the Presidency.”
________________________________

Thank you. Your well reasoned—and somewhat diplomatic—reply is exactly what I expected from you.

The only ‘nationality status’ question remaining is if Mr. Obama listed himself as a foreign exchange student during some of his collegiate years, which is perhaps a potential reason why he will not release his college records.

You have largely debunked the COLB issue—for most of the initially incredulous among us with open minds—and I appreciated your patience whereby you had to restate numerous points repeatedly.

To me, the value of this thread is to serve as an archive of these issues based on the extra effort you and others have contributed. Thanks again.

FFLEO,
I was being ironic in showing how the “birther” movement has
proceeded and the “evidence” they use. I think that Vince on this thread and others had demolished their arguments. While I do understand that perhaps in your opinion President Obama has not been fully forthcoming on all records, I would offer a much less sinister reason. The fact is the Republican noise machine, since Bill Clinton’s election has worked at trying to de-legitimize every Democrat they view as a political threat. This has been done systematically by a technique named by Joseph Goebbels as “The big Lie.” The idea being that if you repeat something long enough after a while it gains hold as a legitimate point. As Vince has indicated time and again the “birther” movement is not interested when their assertions are disproven, they merely move on to others. I believe that President Obama understood this, even as a candidate and moved to limit the “red meat”
available for this group. For information on this ongoing plot why not google Richard Mellon Scaife?

James W. von Brunn asked many of the same questions on the list before it was reported that he killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum. He said the COLB was a proven countefeit.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/06/james-w-von-brunn-obama-is-missing.php?page=1

Anyone interested in these issues can find hundreds of threads and comments at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/ It is a good balance to World News Daily.

I also find it interesting that although no court has ever determined what a Natural Born Citizen is that the State Department and Senate say two parents as U.S. Citizens.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

We then look at Senate Resolution 511 in reference to McCain

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record. He stated:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

The magic question is:

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?

What was their logic? The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen. I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.

However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

Why does it require two citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents? This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators. Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern. What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.

Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son. These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.

To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?

WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?

What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question? This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511. Get a quote on the record answering this question.

I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.

Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents. It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.

Again, that section states:

“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”

Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?

Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”. This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly. In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship. Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.

In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”. This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US. Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.

I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511, but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

Scott Horton interviews Marjorie Cohn on torture and US illegal wars at following link;

http://BuenaVistaMall.com/09_05_05_cohn.mp3

“Jim Byrne is butting into an area he doesn’t have a right to comment on. Here is proof that he is a Scotsman and not an American:”
_________________________________

Mike, do you know for sure that the Mr. Jim Byrne who posted on this blawg is the one you referenced? There are likely more than several men in the world named “Jim Byrne.”

Of course, you may be correct and perhaps Jim Byrne (with his identifying avatar) will return to reply to you and others. Regardless, some of Jim’s comments are not lessened or invalidated simply because he is a Scot, if in fact he is.

By Dan Spielberg

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names” ~ Chinese Proverb

May 13, 2009 “Lew Rockwell” — If you are a poor, hapless Afghan civilian whose family’s bodies were ripped apart by U.S. bombs, does it really make a difference to you if the air “strikes” were ordered by the Moron from Texas, George W Bush, or the Agent of Change, Barack Obama? I would think not. If you were a Pakistani civilian whose village had been bombed by the U.S. would your heart be comforted by the fact that the mad bombers have a new, young, hip “Commander-in-Chief” who makes funny jokes to all the stenographers known as “The Washington Press Corps”? I sincerely doubt that as well.

Barack Obama sold himself to the country as someone who would bring massive “change” to the policies of the U.S. government, but of course when it comes to the favorite activity of that cancerous organism, warring against wholly innocent civilian populations in foreign countries, there will be no change. In fact, even the pleas of the President of the supposedly free and democratic country of Afghanistan are meaningless in the face of the U.S. government’s desire to enforce its will on as much of the Earth as possible. I wonder if Americans would feel like they lived in a “free democracy” if the U.S. was occupied by a foreign military power that regularly killed our people and refused to stop? A power that calls refraining from murder as fighting with “one hand tied behind our back” as White House “National Security” Advisor James Jones recently did? I am pretty sure they emphatically would NOT.

This morning’s news brings more information to us of “Barry’s” latest slaughter, with at least 8 people in Pakistan dead, none of whom ever hurt a single innocent American. If they had hurt any U.S. soldiers in the region, that, of course, is wholly a result of the imperialists in Washington invading the region in the first place. To kill someone for defending themselves against aggression is the definition of tyrannical is it not? Or is the U.S. Government so holy, so infallible and morally upright that any who defy it are to be disposed of, like so much human garbage? Is a country that claims to be Christian really ready to accept the blasphemous idea that the U.S. Government is above any laws, even those of the God that the majority of Americans claim to believe in?

The Chinese proverb that opens this piece is true in all times and places, so let’s call Mr. Obama by his real names: Wall Street Stooge, Zionist lickspittle, National Socialist, liar and above all, mass murderer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8116046.stm

“Former detainee: ‘They put medicine in our drink to prevent us sleeping’
By Ian Pannell
BBC News, Kabul

Allegations of abuse and neglect at a US detention facility in Afghanistan have been uncovered by the BBC.

Former detainees have alleged they were beaten, deprived of sleep and threatened with dogs at the Bagram military base.

The BBC interviewed 27 former inmates of Bagram around the country over a period of two months.

The Pentagon has denied the charges and insisted that all inmates in the facility are treated humanely.

All the men were asked the same questions and they were all interviewed in isolation…

But unlike its detainees at the US naval facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the prisoners at Bagram have no access to lawyers and they cannot challenge their detention.

The inmates at Bagram are being kept in “a legal black-hole, without access to lawyers or courts”, according to Tina Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, a legal support group representing four detainees.
A former detainee held by the US at the Bagram air base
None of the detainees were charged or put on trial

She is pursuing legal action that, if successful, would grant detainees at Bagram the same rights as those still being held at Guantanamo Bay.

But the Obama administration is trying to block the move.”

No. 08-9797
Title: James D. Schneller, Petitioner
v.
Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al.

Docketed: April 16, 2009
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Nos.: (199 MM 2008)
Decision Date: January 8, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 6 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 18, 2009)
May 16 2009 Waiver of right of respondents Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al. to respond filed.
Jun 3 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2009.
Jun 10 2009 Supplemental brief of petitioner James D. Schneller filed. (Distributed)
Jun 22 2009 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.

A judge in California has scheduled a July 13 hearing in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president in which the plaintiffs’ attorney, Orly Taitz, says the commander-in-chief is in default.

The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”

“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.

The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.

“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.

“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.

“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.

“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”

The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”

The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.

“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.

Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.

Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.

She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.

“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.

“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”

She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.

“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?

“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.

“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”

Jim’s birth certificate. ROFLMAO

Do you have comments regarding Mr. Obama not revealing his grades, college transcripts, and especially his LSAT results and other lawyerly pursuits as noted in the 12 items I listed above in this thread? I am especially interested in your comments as attorneys.

Most people who are in high public office are open and transparent regarding their curricula vitae, especially if they are proud, accomplished, and have little or nothing to hide.

All professionals seeking government employment must submit résumés composed of CVs containing college transcripts and other life experiences

Thanks.

Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case – 2nd Extension of time granted to Defendants

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009. You can read the full order at the link below. When you read the order you will see that the court addressed this second request for an extension in great detail in his five page order. On page two the Judge writes, “In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.” Then on page four the Judge writes, “Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.” The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, “The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously.” The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, “The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25].” The order was written and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider who serves at the:

United States Courthouse
400 Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08102-1570