Hollister vs Obama

Hemenway, a local attorney representing Hollister of Philip Berg’s dismissed Hollister vs Berg, attacked Judge Robertson’s misuse of Internet hearsay when the judge held that Obama’s ‘native’ born status was sufficiently vetted by being “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”

This WorldNetDaily article is a must read.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92149

I also suggest a read of Kerchner vs Obama, a case represented by New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo. His jurisprudence of challenging the prima facie evidentiary value of Obama’s well-publicized (little understood) Certification of Live Birth supports Hemenway’s demand for discovery and access to Obama’s original 1961 birth registration.

Here is part of Endnote 7 in Kerchner et al vs Obama et al. His explanation of legal challenges to prima facie evidence of the famous Obama C.O.L.B. supports HRS 338-18 authority for Hemenway to access Obama’s blocked vital information per 338-14.3.

Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-
14.3. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.

[From its web site:]

 “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the
original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

[Additionally, at the bottom of the COLB, it states:]

 “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his COLB regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the COLB must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of
where he was born.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3039

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Hollister vs Obama”

  1. slcraig Says:

    paralegalnm,

    You wrote:Author: paralegalnm
    Comment:
    Leo, I agree, your ‘mootness’ follows the Political Questions Doctrine. That
    is why I wrote to the Justices, asking them to forbear the political questions
    and favor the question of original jurisdiction, an authoritative definition of
    the term of art ‘natural born citizen.’

    Once that opinion is published, with the help of amicus briefs, the congress,
    media, and electorate can act constitutionally.
    ——————————————————————————

    Please look up SCOTUS 08-10817 Petition for writ from USCA 10th Circ. 09-6082 from USDC Western Div. OK 09-0343

    Civil Rights seeking ‘Constitutional Legal Definition of Natural Born Citizen.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Be more specific on case number, please.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Your citation is not specific for search.

      Are you referring to Springer’s 11th Amendment frivolous case? Give me a specific case cite and what part of it is on point.

  2. slcraig Says:

    paralegalnm,

    Sorry about that, the SCOTUS was just docketed on the 10th, review conferrence on 25th,(You can only access doket info there), USCA 10th circ has all filings available on Pacer, 09-6082. Steven Lee Craig V. United States

    Original and ist amended was dismissed sua sponte from USDC Western OK 09-0343, then in appeal made motion to suspend the Rules, 21.1, and hear the question. Petitioned SCOTUS under Rule 11, Petition before Judgement, in support of Appeal Motions.

  3. Barack Hussein Obama—A Natural Born Subject of Great Britain « Paralegalnm’s Blog Says:

    […] href=”http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/hollister-vs-obama/“> Attorney Hemenway in the Hollister vs Obama Case […]

  4. slcraig Says:

    (I just caught your post at Leo’s and thought you might be interested in where I’m at on my continuing quest……..your thoughts on Original Jurisdiction are right on point….the Administrative Review that I’m at the 10th on should be sufficient to make some extraordinary arguments in a Leave to File Motion to SCOTUS……..we’ll see…)

    NEWS RELEASE

    CONTACT: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Steven L Craig
    Slcraigre@aol.com

    Natural Born Citizen Seeks Certification

    February 8, 2011 Oklahoma City, OK – A Response to Show A Cause Order in the US Court of Appeals 10th Circuit has been released to the public today as the paperwork makes its way to the 10th Circuit Court Clerk for filing. The legal definition of the Constitutional idiom “natural born Citizen” is the focus of the suit.

    The Appellant, an Oklahoma resident, has spent the last 2 ½ years requesting the Federal Government or the Courts to “certify” him as a natural born Citizen. He argues that if he, born of two American citizen parents on US soil, can not be determined to be natural born Citizen, then no one can be certified as such and therefore no one is eligible to run for the office of US President or Vice-President. Furthermore, he found that the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Administration in the publication, “The Citizen’s Almanac” changed the wording for President/VP eligibility as a “native-born citizen” requirement. He contends that this usurpation of authority to “abridge, enlarge, and/or modify the Constitutional “idiom” of natural born Citizen (US Constitution Clause V, Section I, Article II) further dilutes the question of who is eligible to run for President. He has requested the Supreme Court as the Constitutional authority to resolve this issue by finally defining the “idiom”.

    When he was asked why he thought it was important to publicly release the current filings, he explained that it was an issue of both national security and for his own protection. “The public needs to know.”

    This “Response” is a must read for all those who follow or are engaged in politics in the US.

    To read the “Response” online, visit;

    http://www.scribd.com/collections/2850258/USCA-10th-Circuit-11-9501
    ###

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


%d bloggers like this: