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
Jun 302009
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
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.
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.)
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.
Breaking news
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
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.
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.
Jun 222009
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]
Recent Comments