The Case & The Court

from the World Net Daily forum  Question by PhoxarRed

“Straight_shooter, (that’s me) What crime has President Obama committed that you have presented evidence of in a court of law? “

my reply:

What court of law is willing to even consider the issue of his lack of meeting the natural born citizenship requirement of the Constitution?  None so far, they claim the plaintiffs have “no standing”, they claim it has already been “hashed out” in the court of public opinion so they dismiss the cases brought to them, not based on legal reasoning, but on fear or bias.  Not one has the courage to confront these issues and perhaps it will never be decided by any court, but maybe, if enough pressure is placed on the House of Reps.,  someone in Washington will find the nerve to review the issue in open hearings. But unless Corsi’s book helps create that pressure, it will never happen because everyone in the media is drinking the Kool Aid and not willing to inform themselves about the topic.  Even those Republicans who should be leading the charge regarding Obama’s ineligibility due to a foreign father, are silent and seem to be ignorant of his ineligibility due to his patrimony.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility asks whether the justices still are committed to the principle of considering the Founders’ intent when ruling on constitutional issues.

The attorney is John D. Hemenway, who is representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was eligible under the Constitution’s requirements for a president to occupy the Oval Office.

“We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

“Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said.

Read more: Supreme Court told: Don’t avoid eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393#ixzz1ETTvD1qD

“The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution,” Hemenway wrote. “To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.”

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama’s presidency.

See World Net Daily blog for the entire post which reveals much more. over 10,950 posts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that … respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not ‘eligible to the office of president,…’ Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition,” the motion explained.
Read more: Supreme Court told: Don’t avoid eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393#ixzz1ETUfBc24

Hemenway’s arguments come in the petition for rehearing that follows the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.

Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

“Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court,” said the document, submitted to the court yesterday and expected to be docketed today.

“Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, ‘as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.’ Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners’ petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion,” Hemenway wrote.

“Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure,” the brief explains.

“If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate,” the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered “the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president ‘be’ a ‘natural born citizen.’”

The argument continued, “Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners’ motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen.’

“That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country,” the filing said.

A spokeswoman for the court told WND the motion for recusal was received Dec. 30, but the justices wouldn’t treat it as an actual motion for the court, just as a “request.”

“These types of requests are not treated as motions, but are requests that are forwarded by the clerk’s office to the justice or justices to which the request is addressed. The requests are handled by the individual justice or justices.

“If a justice recuses from a case the recusal is noted on the docket typically at the time the court issues an order acting on the case,” the spokeswoman said.

However, the document prepared for the Supreme Court clearly stated “Motion for Recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan,” and a second time, “Petitioners’ Motion to Recuse.”

But the court spokeswoman declined to respond to the inquiries about the procedures regarding recusal of justices who have a personal stake in such cases — what ethical guidelines are used by the court to determine those cases and whether there was a violation of the court rules in the case.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

“If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law],” stated the pleading.

“Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure,” it continued.

“Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question,” it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as “denied” with no explanation.

It appears from the court’s documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the “conference,” the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Read more: Supreme Court told: Don’t avoid eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393#ixzz1ETUAgFxe

Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister’s case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama’s eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the “certification of live birth” posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since “Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader,” was granted “the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House ‘proves’ that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii.”

It cited as an example of Obama’s disconnect from the “rule of law” his administration’s “illegal ban on offshore drilling,” which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

“They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all,” the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge’s ruling in Florida that Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional.

“The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened,” the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a “biased” decision on “a completely extrajudicial factor”  — twittering — prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve “even the appearance of impartiality.”

“It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases,” the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cfkerchner said…
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.htmlThe federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”Link to the treason quote in case context:
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg

Link to Case Summary:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0

Link to Full Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264

The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org

6 Responses to The Case & The Court

  1. arnash says:

    It is intellectually unsupportable to boldly argue that whatever Congressmen say must be gospel truth. It doesn’t matter who erroneously equates native-born with natural-born. Even if everyone does it, that doesn’t make it correct, anymore than claiming that native Americans are born in India because everybody calls them Indians.
    Errors, like that of Columbus, can be perpetuated for generations and centuries. Congressmen can be as ignorant as everyone else, as well as judges. The only question before us is; “What was the priority and viewpoint of the founding fathers?”. No one else matters. And no law or decision is “settled” or “final” except what is written in the Constitution and its amendments. Everything else is subject to being overturned by clearer thinking judges. And just because a matter has been adjudicated and a decision rendered does not certify that the judgement was based strictly on the Constitution and not the erroneous understanding or bias of the judges. Their judgement is not “settled law” but is subject to overturn. Too many times in our not-so-distant past we have seen the Supreme Court tilt decidedly to the Progressive Left when it overturned “settled law” that had been the law of the land for decades. A more conservative court could do the same and bring constitutional rulings back into line with the original intent of the
    Constitution.

  2. arnash says:

    From World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292441#ixzz1KmUE4THZ

    “Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and sole natural allegiance from birth only for the president and commander in chief of the military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to make decisions for our national survival. It is required of the president because such a status gives the American people the best chance that a would-be president will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the 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 chance to keep it that way.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court effectively killed the Kerchner case when it was before the justices with one terse statement: “The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.”

    Apuzzo said his clients were hurt by the court’s ruling, as was Obama.

    “This decision did not help Mr. Obama,” Apuzzo said at the time. “It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?”

    “This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn’t,” wrote Kerchner when the case was developing. “Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn’t. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn’t. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.”

    “Now it is far worse,” Kerchner continued. “The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken.”

    Read more: Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292441#ixzz1KoWiHGDf

  3. arnash says:

    Posted by John Quincy on Jul 03, 2011 11:09

    It’s not about “disagreeing with them on some issues”, it is about their lack of fidelity to their Oaths and the Constitution (Kennedy, Breyer). It is about their dubious character (Ginsberg, Sotomeyer). It is that the conceited sophist Breyer and the arrogant Kagan believe that foreign law or even their very own beliefs are superior to the will of We The People as expressed by our laws.

    So while you slavishly worship these judges and state “they share my opinion that he is eligible”, you overlook the fact that their failure to sua sponte stop “Obama” or otherwise rule on the issue at hand proves nothing. The issue has NOT been considered. And given the dubious integrity of these sketchy characters it is no surprise.
    Asking an individual to prove their identity and eligibility is entirely reasonable. All we’ve gotten are delays, obfuscations, half-truths (lies), and fabricated images. All of which are unacceptable and highly indicative of knowing and deliberate concealment of ineligibility. The most monstrous crime ever perpetrated.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    By arnash
    It is what it is. Nothing is going to change it, anymore than one can change the personal biases and political philosophies of Supreme Court justices. They will rule as they please, all one can do is presume that they “get it right” most of the time, as they did just recently (today?) when ruling that the World Court does not have jurisdiction over the US legal system, even though Obama fought against that position which was taken my a State that wants to execute a Mexican national. Unbelievably, three Justices sided with the World Court! Probably including Obama’s appointees, but I’m just guessing.

  4. arnash says:

    Post opposing my posts:
    “in the real world of law, we need to support what we say with citations to legal authority”
    You’re like someone who’s lived his whole life in a box, and upon being told that he’s in a box replies; “What box, I don’t see any box? That’s just a silly concept. You can’t prove I’m in a box!” All legal authorities can do is express opinions, sometimes they’re fact-based, sometimes not. The “legal authorities” that sit as Supreme Court justices can’t agree on hardly anything, commonly splitting 5-4. So how do you describe them? Five geniuses of Law vs five morons? Opinions, it’s been said, are like A-holes, everyone’s got one. As for the whole legal world arrayed against my views, who was right? Columbus? or everyone else?

    Man, you really love to drink the Kool-Aid. “The judicial opinion is the ‘official’ truth discerned authoritatively”. Tell us how authoritative the SCOTUS is when consistently rendering 5-4 decisions? Are 5 of them legal geniuses and the others legal morons? No, some decisions simply are NOT authoritative, they are nothing more than “majority rules”.

  5. arnash says:

    In his dissent, Justice Clark stated:
    “Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a NATIVE-BORN may become President, “Art. II, § 1. Id at 177

    The Clark quote is an exact repetition: comparing native and naturalized citizen rights, except Clark then uses the INCORRECT term, “native-born” for the president, when the Constitution clearly uses “natural-born”–an error on Clarke’s part. It shows that even SCOTUS justices make mistakes! Just because judges or justices mistakenly use “native” for “natural” does not change or establish new meaning for what the Constitution requires. On the face of it, it is an ERROR.

  6. arnash says:

    Of Presidential Eligibility, Doubling Down and Linguistic Torts, Part 3
    “DICTA…PURE AND SIMPLE” by Joseph DeMaio, ©2012

    The Congressional Research Service touts itself as putting forth “the nation’s best thinking” but it betrayed its sacred trust to be an impartial finder of facts and stabbed the American people in the back. That seems to be par for the course with the insidious cabal of corrupt sycophants of the Progressive messiah Barack Obama.

    (Feb. 24, 2012) — [Editor’s Note: This scholarly essay is Part 3 of 4 by Joseph DeMaio discussing how the CRS memos, authored by Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service, and in particular, the third memo (CRSR) obscure information from the reader indicating that jus soli, or birth of the soil, is not the only factor in determining the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” …there are three, and only three U.S. Supreme Court decisions (thus far) to be properly addressed in connection with the issue of presidential eligibility…
    A CLEAR AND INCISIVE LOOK AT THE FACTS CONVEYED BY THREE SCOTUS CASES

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/24/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-3/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: