10-446 KERCHNER V. OBAMA CERTIORARI DENIED

My 2 cents for what it’s worth.

If the military split, it would all come down to who held access to our Air Force and our Military Equipment.

Unfortunately, if we had another Civil War,our Country would look a whole lot different than it did after our first Civil War.

My personal hope is that States secede and refuse to pay for anything except a strong military.

Our country will continue to implode until we start to solve problems at a local level.

While I do not consider myself a Reagan Republican, I strongly believe in his statement, that it made no sense to send taxes to Washington, so that the Elites could skim 25% and send us back the remainder.

Well that’s NOT what her “underling” the Chief Election Clerk, Tim Adams, says: “There is/was NO such birth certificate, never has been, nil, nada, zilch!!!

A little bit of wikileaks???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AV4YxiD7Jo

The Governor’s statement was backed up by the state Director of Health, the state Registrar of Vital Statistics and the state Attorney General. Who backed up the “underling’s” statement? NOBODY.

The vote in the US House of Representatives on the Resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawai’i statehood which contained the phrase “birthplace of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama” was 378-0.

The decision was not on the merits, as in oral arguments were never presented. The lower court dismissal was upheld by the appeals court because it said the plaintiff's case "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

You are misunderstanding the legal terminology. A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not "on the merits," because it means that the court has no power to decide the issue either way. A dismissal for "failure to state a claim" is an adjudication on the merits, because the court is determining that the plaintiff has no legal right to win his case. Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 41(B) also states that any dismissal of a case other than for lack of jurisdiction constitutes an adjudication on the merits.

This decision did NOT declare Obama to be a natural born citizen; they simply presented an self-contradictory definition of natural born citizen, but rejected the case on failure to state a claim. It's a very embarrassing piece of legal writing as the court made several errors and inexplicably mischaracterized the plaintiffs arguments.

The Court found as a matter of law that, if Obama was born in Hawai'i, he was a natural born citizen. They also found that the plaintiff had not pleadedany reasonable basis for concluding that Obama wasn't born in Hawai'i.

A dismissal for "failure to state a claim" is an adjudication on the merits, because the court is determining that the plaintiff has no legal right to win his case.

The biggest problem is that the court does not show that it understands the merits of the case, especially in its errant interpretation on natural born citizenship. The appeals court willfully mischaracterizes or misunderstands the arguments presented by the plaintiffs. This is why oral arguments are important. This way the court would get all the information and not just briefs.

The Court found as a matter of law that, if Obama was born in Hawai'i, he was a natural born citizen.

This is incorrect. Natural born citizenship is NOT a matter of law. The SCOTUS told us in the Wong Kim Ark case that it is defined OUTSIDE of statutory law and OUTSIDE of the Constitution. The appeals court divined some sort of guidance from the ruling that says otherwise, but admit through their own footnotes that their reasoning does not hold up logically, "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen ...”" In one part of the decision, they admit the plaintiffs are challenging Obama's place of birth. In the second part they say the plaintiffs aren't challenging the place of birth. They mischaracterized the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as "various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate." They inexplicably trivialize the writings of Emmerich de Vattel as "an eighteenth century treatise," as if it were a random citation, which ignores the fact that Vattel has been cited frequently for legal guidance by the SCOTUS for nearly 200 years.

Probably the worst part is that the court willfully left out the meat of the WKA decision that declares the plaintiff's citizenship to dependent on the resident status of his parents. Here's what the court wrote:

" ... the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .”"

The part ommitted from the original WKA decision says, "... but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, ..." Obama's father did NOT have permanent domicil and residence in the United States. Under the WKA defintion, President Stitch Lips is not even a citizen, much less a natural born citizen ... and that's only if he can legally prove he was truly born in Hawaii ... something that has never happened.

Modern court practice is like that too. Restrict, restrict, restrict what is heard, what evidence can be admitted, what arguments can be made. Break a trial into two parts, one for finding of “facts”, of guilt or innocence to charges, based on a hobbled blindered jury spoonfed like a child too young to chew. A second part for the penalty.

Yet by natural law principles no such trial can be had. For in weighing a claim of a crime the full knowledge of what penalty will apply must also be considered to fully weigh the process by the jury reaches a decision. Modern court process makes fools and idiots of all, and in that mix judges and prosecutors no longer act as guardians of justice, but brutes set to punish — a type of idiot.

The Governor’s statement was backed up by the state Director of Health, the state Registrar of Vital Statistics and the state Attorney General. You have a great imagination. The governor’s statement is not legally backed up by anyone. Part of it is an outright lie that you keep choosing to ignore.

Just because you say that someone is lying doesn’t make it so.
If any legal proceeding ever gets to a discovery or testimony phase, Governor Lingle, Dr. Fukino, Janice Okubo and Dr. Onaka can be deposed and subpoenaed to testify under oath. However on December 6th, a new Democrat administration takes over in Hawai’i and the political equation changes.

At any point in time, a Grand Jury investigation could have been held in order to accomplish those steps.

Just because you say that someone is lying doesn’t make it so.

Part of what she said is factually false, so yes, it IS so. Why do you make excuses and deflect from this simple fact. Her deparment did NOT as she claimed publicize any news release saying Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. That is a falsehood that she calls a fact. In essence, she is lying.

If any legal proceeding ever gets to a discovery or testimony phase, Governor Lingle, Dr. Fukino, Janice Okubo and Dr. Onaka can be deposed and subpoenaed to testify under oath.

No kidding. Until this happens, there remains no legal evidence Obama was born in Hawaii, just hearsay.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.