2009-06-29 Kerchner v Obama – Order to remove non-party submissions from docket June 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Kerchner et al v Obama, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Mario Apuzzo.comments closed
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
CHARLES F. KERSHNER JR., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et
al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 09-253-JBS-JS
O R D E R
This matter having been sua sponte raised by the Court; and the Court finding that certain letters received from non-parties were erroneously added to the court’s docket (see, e.g., Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25); and the Court noting that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented”); and good cause existing for the entry of this
Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2009, that the
Clerk of the Court is directed to strike and remove from the docket
all letters from non-parties including, but not limited to, Doc.
Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25.
s/Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge
2006-06-29 Order Directing Apuzzo to Correct claims of Court inviting 3rd party Correspondence June 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Kerchner et al v Obama, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Mario Apuzzo.comments closed
Note: A separate order to remove all inappropriate correspondence was also entered
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF MITCHELL H. COHEN COURTHOUSE
JOEL SCHNEIDER 1 John F. Gerry Plaza, Room 2060
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAMDEN, NJ 08101-0887
(856) 757-5446
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
June 29, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, Esquire
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Re: Kershner, et al. v. Obama, II, et al.
Civil No. 09-253-JBS-JS
Dear Mr. Apuzzo:
The Court recently learned that it has been erroneously reported on certain internet web sites that the court accepts correspondence and faxes from non-parties that will become part of the court’s file. As a result the court has received numerous letters and faxes from non-parties. Although the court does not know the source of the erroneous reports, you are nevertheless directed to advise your clients that the court does not accept
correspondence or faxes from non-parties for filing in the court’s file. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented”). An Order will be entered striking the nonconforming letters from the court’s docket.
Very truly yours,
s/Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge
JS:jk
cc: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
Elizabeth Ann Pascal, AUSA
2009-06-22 – Berg v Obama: Motion for Reconsideration June 30, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Berg v Obama (Qui Tam), Lawyers, Philip Berg.comments closed
See also: Kerchner v Obama category postings
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, pro se, on his
own BEHALF and on BEHALF of the
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
Relator,
vs.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-cv-01933
RELATOR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
NOW COMES the Relator, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”], and hereby submits the within Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order of June 9, 2009 on the following grounds:
• Relator has discovered new law and new information pertaining to the Conflict-of-Interest with both the United States Attorney General’s Office as well as the United States Department of Justice;
• This Court never addressed the issue of the Conflict-of-Interest;
• A Conflict-of-Interest exists with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; the U.S. Attorney General’s Office as well as the United States Department of Justice in violation of the Federal Conflict-of-Interest Laws and the Code of Federal Regulations;
• The Relator has met the burden and this Court has the inherent power to Reconsider the Order issued June 9, 2009; and
• In the interest of Justice, this Court should grant the Relator’s Motion; Conflict out U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General’s Office and the United States Department of Justice. This Court has the inherent power to appoint the Relator or appoint a Special Prosecutor should this Court feel it necessary.
06-08-2009 – Kerchner v Obama – Motion to extend time granted June 28, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Kerchner et al v Obama, Lawyers, Mario Apuzzo.comments closed
Note: While plaintiffs and some press have made much of the statement by the judge that the plaintiffs raise significant issues, this should be read in context of the request for an extension. Some have some hastily jumped to the conclusion that the Judge has provided any judgment on the merits of the case. Nothing is further from the truth.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et al., :
Defendants.
:Civil No. 09-0253 (JBS)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the “Motion to Extend Time in which to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint” [Doc. No. 17] filed by Elizabeth A. Pascal, Assistant United States Attorney on behalf of Defendants. The docket entries reflect that Ms. Pascal is counsel of record for all Defendants. Albeit, Ms. Pascal’s Declaration [Doc. No. 17-2] indicates that she has only been assigned to represent President Barack Obama and the United States of America. (See Declaration at ¶6.) Ms. Pascal also notes that former Vice President Richard Cheney has requested representation from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which was granted. (Id. at ¶7.)
De Facto Officer Doctrine and Quo Warranto – Two dead ends June 28, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in De Facto Officer, Uncategorized.comments closed
In understanding why even if President Obama were a ‘de facto’ rather than a ‘de jure’ officer, his actions would remain valid, one needs to understand the “De Facto Officer Doctrine”.
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
It’s the de facto officer doctrine which I believe dooms any hopes that a military court martial or even a civil/criminal lawsuit can be used to challenge the President’s eligibility. In fact, it seems that such challenges cannot even be brought up in the same proceedings unless the challenge is the claim. We all have seen how such claims have been consistently rejected due to lack of standing, remedy etc.
Climate Bill House – Yeas have it 219-212 June 26, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.comments closed
Breaking news
06-26-2009: Hollister v Soetoro: Briefing schedule and no Oral Argument June 26, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Hollister v Soetoro, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Philip Berg.comments closed
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 09-5080 September Term 2008
1:08-cv-02254
1:08-cv-02254-JR
Filed On: June 26, 2009 [1193318]
Gregory S. Hollister,
Appellant
v.
Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural
person; de facto President in posse; and as
de jure President in posse, also known as
Barack Obama, et al.,
Appellees
——————————
Consolidated with 09-5161
06-26-2009: Kerchner v Obama Motion to Dismiss June 26, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Kerchner et al v Obama, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Mario Apuzzo, Uncategorized.comments closed
Note: As predicted, the defendants have asked for dismissal because of the established lack of standing etc. Ironically, there are now sufficient precedent cases (one from Berg) that can be cited. Note that the defendants have stated that “For purposes of this motion, therefore, all of the factual allegations in the second amended complaint will be taken as true.”. I predict some confusion as to the meaning and relevance of this, so let me explain. Rather than arguing the allegations, the defendants, for the purpose of the motion to dismiss, accept all the factual allegations as true and continue to show why, even under those circumstances, the case should be dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Charles F. Kerchner, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack Hussein Obama II,
President Elect of the
United States of America,
President of the United States
of America, and Individually,
a/k/a Barry Soetoro;
United States of America; et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 09-253
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), AND 12(f)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 20, 2009, the Defendants shall move before the Honorable Jerome B. Simandle, United States District Judge, sitting at the Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse, One John F. Gerry Plaza, Fourth and Cooper Streets, Camden, New Jersey, for entry of an Order dismissing the action as to those Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the second amended complaint because the Plaintiffs lack standing. Defendants also move to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because these Defendants are immune from suit. Alternatively, these Defendants move to strike the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) for failing to comply with Rules 8(a) and 15.
Orly: Question(s) regarding British Citizenship June 24, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.comments closed
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement on his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed at birth – by British law?
It seems that the questioner may be unfamiliar with the fact that people can be born with multiple citizenships due to ‘conflicting’ laws. In case of President Obama, he was born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen of the United States. Since his father was also governed by British law, Obama gained British Citizenship status and later Kenyan citizenship status. When Obama reached the age of 21, he maintained his US natural born citizenship status and his Kenyan status dissolved. In fact, many of the natural born citizens of the early United States were also claimed to be British due to the citizenship status of their father.
Note also that there is a difference between Obama governed by a British act and his birth status being governed by such an act.
Birth Certificates: Exploring Hawaiian Law June 22, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Certification of Live Birth, Citizenship, Myths, Natural Born.comments closed
What do we know?
According to President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, he was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu Hawaii. The document was filed 4 days after his birth, on August 8th.
Several people have pointed to various Hawaiian laws to generate doubt about the event.
Let’s look at the facts.
First there is the claim that HRS338-17.8 allows children born out of state of residents who claimed Hawaii as their legal residence at least one year prior to birth to be registered in Hawaii.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
The first problem is that this law was passed in 1982 (this is what [L 1982, c 182, §1] refers to), 21 years after Obama’s birth. The second problem is that Obama’s birth certificate was filed with 4 days of his birth. Finally, the city of birth on the birth certificate is “Honolulu, Hawaii”. In other words, it is unlikely that the COLB which is now the official Hawaiian birth certificate was filed under 338-17.8. In fact, late filings also HRS 338.16 which states that late filings will be marked distinctly as “late” and the filing date reflects the late filing.
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
(c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.
(d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.
The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.
(e) As used in this section, “late” means one year or more after the date of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §20; RL 1955, §57-19; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-16; am L 1972, c 66, §1(2); am L 1997, c 305, §3]
Schneller v Cortes: SCOTUS Dismissed and Denied June 22, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.comments closed
Monday June 22, 2009
08-9797 SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES, SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) are paid and the petitions are 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
Orly – Lightfoot v Bowen – Orly's Failure to file timely June 21, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Lawyers, Lightfoot v Bowen, Orly Taitz.comments closed
On March 12, Orly filed a motion with the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in the case Lightfoot v Bowen. Remember how the Supreme Court denied the original application for stay. Unfortunately, the 25 day period which is granted for such a motion had passed In addition, it seems rather surprising that the stay was for a “petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.” And yet as far as I know such a petition for writ of certiori was never submitted. . I am not sure why she let the opportunities to file or reconsider pass, but in her latest motion, she raises some pretty outlandish claims.
The only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that the clerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the clerks that are preparing the summaries for the justices, have never shown this case Lightfoot v Bowen to the Justices or have summarized it in false light.
It seems rather strange that it is always the fault of others when Orly fails, after all the possibility that the case lacked merrit has to be rejected in favor of far more outlandish ‘conspiracy theories’
Easterling et al v Obama et al – Orly's attempt to file with the Supreme Court June 21, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Easterling v Obama, Just Plain Weird, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz, Stalking SCOTUS.comments closed
Orly has submitted what appears to be a Quo Warranto suit “Easterling v Obama to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Court has Original Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court typically will only hear cases that come from lower Courts and only in exceptional circumstances will accept an ‘Original Jurisdiction’ case. Full details about the case are lacking since the Court has yet to accept the filing and Orly has yet to provide further information about the suit other than that the clerks of the Supreme Court have noticed various procedural problems with it and have requested Orly to clarify.
William K Suter recently sent Orly a letter requiring her to state the grounds upon which the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is invoked, including citations to statutory provisions. Suter notes that Original Jurisdictions extends only to cases or controversies between two or more states or between the United States and one or more states. He mentions that section 1251 provides for original but not exclusive jursdiction over proceedings involving ambassadors.
Suter included a copy of the rules of the Court and noted that Orly is not permitted to combine pleadings.
The reference to ‘proceedings involving ambassadors’ refers to Orly’s attempt to serve summons on a variety of ambassadors, even though they are not part of the case and thus ‘Original Jurisdiction’ is likely to fail. In fact, the Courts have no jurisdiction over ambassadors, except under rare circumstances.
In a recent motion, Orly has petitioned the Court to refuse to fill retiring Judge Souter’s position until the ‘issue is resolved’. Again, I doubt that the motion will even be heard, given that the Quo Warranto filing has yet to be officially accepted.
Youtube – Rachel Maddow: The Right Wing's Obama "Birther Movement" June 21, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in Kenya, Certification of Live Birth, Myths, News, Youtube.comments closed
Born Identity – Star Bulletin interviews Janice Okubo June 21, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Certification of Live Birth, Myths.comments closed
Born identity
Birth certificate styles adjust to fit times and regulations
Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?
Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
Hemenway v Robert Gibbs (Whitehouse Press Secretary) June 20, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in John Hemenway, Lawyers.comments closed
Note: John Hemenway was the attorney on file for the Hollister v Soetoro case which was dismissed and in which Hemenway was reprimanded by the Judge for filing a frivolous suit. The judge was kind and understanding enough to only reprimand Hemenway.
Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old and takes considerable and justified pride in his patriotic public service and his status as a Rhodes Scholar. He is unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, and in his case the permissible alternative sanction of a reprimand will be sufficient. “Others similarly situated” -– the people who put Mr. Hemenway up to filing this foolish suit – are unlikely to be deterred, except by a penalty that would be unreasonable to impose on Mr. Hemenway alone.4
John D. Hemenway is hereby reprimanded for his part in the preparation, filing, and prosecution of a legally frivolous suit in this court. The order to show cause [Dkt. #22] is discharged. It is SO ORDERED.
John Hemenway has written another letter to Robert Gibbs who is the Whitehouse Press Secretary.
Taitz v Orange County Weekly June 20, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Lawyers.comments closed
Note: Orly Taitz has sent a letter to the reporter Spencer Kornhaber of Orange County Weekly who reported on the “Birther Movement“. Since she insists that the reporter made some ‘very serious errors’ which ‘need to be corrected’, I have decided to explore these errors in more depth and fairly present them. Note that I am not a lawyer and thus my understanding of the legal system is based on what I have learned in my perusals of the internet, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures etc. If people believe that I have made any errors or omissions, then I am more than happy to fix them.
Yesterday you ran a cover issue relating to Barack Obama’s illegitimacy to Presidency. While you did try to provide a more balanced record of events then you did on prior occasions, there are some very serious errors that need to be corrected.
Orly continues to cite what she considers to be some very serious errors.
For example, you quoted me as saying that there will be a rebellion, that I support it whole heartedly – I never said that.
And yet as Dr Conspiracy observes
Followers of the Orly story will know that she has said various things along this line, including a quote cited in the OC Weekly article. The Internet has a long memory. Orly wrote on her blog last January 17:
I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new elected officials and a new judiciary.
In addition, I have found the following comment which was attributed to Dr Orly. (Posted by Dr. Orly Taitz at 2/3/2009 8:34 PM)
I have reported on this blog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.
The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!
We must stop our federal government dead in its tracks because it is out of control and very dangerous. If stopping them means attacking them and destroying them by force, then so be it.
Orly encourages the editor and reporter to correct some of the disinformation on the blogs and I concur.
Orly still confused about Hawaiian COLB June 19, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.comments closed
At Orly’s site the following statement is made
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past,The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii,
The Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.
All of the above are FLAT OUT LIES
From the Department of Hawaiian Homelands Site:
In other words, even when the Hawaiian officials explain that the DOH no longer issues long forms, they persist in their ignorance and claim otherwise but quoting from the Hawaiian Homelands site. The problem is that the site has been recently updated to read that the DOH no longer issues long forms.
There are two categories of documents used in determining eligibility: primary and secondary.
Primary Documents
Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
Link Department of Hawaiian Homelands
Embarrassing really when one refuses to research the facts.
Liberi v Taitz: Doc 63 Opposition to 2nd Amended Motion to Dismiss June 18, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Lawyers, Legal Cases, Lisa Liberi et al v Orly Taitz et al, Orly Taitz, Philip Berg.comments closed
Note: Berg is asking for the motion to dismiss to be rejected because 1) it was filed after the default was entered 2) Orly Taitz has already filed 2 other motions for dismissal in violation of Federal Civil Rules
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Defendants.
Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION and RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S, ORLY TAITZ, et al and DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, INC. “SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS” and PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES
(more…)
HRJ 34 – Requires Missouri Candidates to submit non existent long forms June 18, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.comments closed
I ran across the following
Many states only issue a short-form BC as Missouri Republicans found out when they tried to pass a bill to require a long form BC for presidential candidates (HJR 34). It was quietly withdrawn when they discovered Missouri ONLY ISSUES SHORT FORMS.
So let’s check. HRJ 34 was indeed witdrawn and yes it did state that “Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted.”
So now the final part of the puzzle, does Missouri only issue short form BC’s?
Yes, as this link explains
MISSOURI BIRTH CERTIFICATES
Missouri Vital Records issues only certified copies of Missouri birth certificates (short forms), which are typically acceptable for passport, social security, employment, personal identification purposes and other legal purposes.
How embarrassing. It also debunks the claims that short forms cannot be used for passports etc… This means that, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, a Federal Statute cannot require States to provide long forms and thus the COLB provided by Obama would satisfy Posey’s bill.
Note: Since poor Troy appears to be less than informed on the topic, here are some relevant links. I would also thank Troy for sending a record number of visitors from his ‘boasting’ link at RosettaSister’s Blog.
1. Hawaii no longer issues long form Certificates
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
Combined with the previous analysis which shows the presence of folds, the raised seal and the signature stamp, it seems hard to argue that Obama’s COLB was somehow a fake.
3. Obama’s certification of live birth in depth
1. Evidence of the two folds
2. Evidence of the raised seal
3. Evidence of a date stamped on the back
4. Obama’s COLB
For those who have not seen the Obama certification of live birth, here is the scan as well as actual photographs of the document, including the raised seal and the signature.
5. Obama’s birth announcements
Sunday Advertiser Aug. 13, 1961. The announcement in the “Births, Marriages, Death” section read: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.”
6. Okubo: It’s a valid Hawaii State certificate
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
