Obama Citizenship

Eligibility Update: Kerchner v. Obama Declaration, Washington Times Ad, Easterling v. Obama Rumor, Other News

By Phil

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009 (a brief background can be found here):

Kerchner v Obama DOC 21 Declaration Opposing Motion to Extend Time Answer FILED 5-18-09

The lawsuit is getting some press coverage as well. What follows is an ad that can be found on page 11 in the May 18th Washington Times National Weekly edition…

Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090518 Issue Wash Times

The following tid-bit was found on Craigslist. It has to do with Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Easterling v. Obama, and since I’m not able to find any actual sourcing for it, consider it rumor at this point:

May 18th, 2009 
I called the Supreme court and asked about the Easterling et al v Obama et al, that was hand delivered Friday morning. I was told that it went through the anthrax scan and an analyst is reviewing it. I was not told who is the analyst. Bottom line, I asked for a Stay pending receipt of the vital records, that I am seeking from the Supreme Court through the Writ of Mandamus. Stay is something that can be decided by one Justice only, there is no need for the whole court. It is like a stay of execution of a prisoner. Only 3 copies are required and typically stays are reviewed by the Justice within a couple of days, very quickly. They can?t say that I need to submit more copies-stay requires only three. It is very similar to a stay that I filed in Lightfoot v Bowen. If Lightfoot was deemed to be filed properly as an Application for a Stay and distributed by the Chief Justice Roberts to the full court, then this one should be deemed to be filed properly as well. I left messages, but didn?t hear back. The name of the Chief clerk is William Sutter, he is a former Judge Advocate of the military. Maybe he can appreciate the importance of the need for resolution of this matter, as active duty military cannot take orders from Obama, until they know that he is legitimate, that he is indeed a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution. [...] We are not asking for any special favors, I am not asking for a closed doors meeting, like they had with Obama, a party of interest, a few days before my Lightfoot case was to be reviewed in conference by the full court, I am asking the clerks to simply post it on the docket and forward to Justice Souter.

Bob Campbell at AmericanGrandJury.org posted the following this weekend:

The Arkansas State Grand Jury made BIG news this weekend. Using the American Grand Jury evidence this jury took the process one step further. They convened a ?live? hearing with 18 members, studied the testimony and evidence, deliberated the charges and put it to a vote. The hearing lasted for approximately 4 hours and the tally was unanimous: All 18 jury members voted to indict Obama. [emphases original]

As further evidence supporting his legal opinion, Mario Apuzzo took some time to talk about “Unity of Citizenship at Birth” (excerpted):

Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

…

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the “natural born Citizen” clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Also, Andy Martin continues his foray into document gathering as he produces a movie on location concerning the President’s background. Rev. Sam Sewell shares his analysis on the psychological operations of propaganda as I continue to wonder:

Is Barack Hussein Obama really a Muslim and, if so, what does that mean for America?

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on May 19, 2009 (boomark / email).