Andy Martin: Contrarian Commentary

My Photo
Name:
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin gives Barack Obama a Thanksgiving bird

Law professor Andy Martin triggers a nationwide attack on Barack Obama's legitimacy to serve as president. Professor Martin originated the theory that the Electoral College should independently question and demand evidence of Obama's original, typewritten, 1961 birth certificate. "Obama's laser-printed facsimile at FactCheck.org is fraud on the American people," says Martin. "No such fraud should receive a single vote in the Electoral College."

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin triggers a new headache for Barack Obama with a campaign to block Obama's approval by the Electoral College

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TRIGGERS YET ANOTHER ANTI-OBAMA FIRESTORM WITH A “MAGIC MOMENT ON THE INTERNET”

MARTIN TOLD THE INTERNET AUDIENCE TO CONTACT MCCAIN ELECTORS AND ASK THEM TO CHALLENGE OBAMA IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

CHICAGO LEGAL EXPERT MARTIN CONTINUES TO BE OBAMA'S NEMESIS: “THE ORIGINAL INTENT” OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE,” ANDY SAID; "THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUBBER-STAMPING SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO RELEASE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE"

AMERICANS RESPONDED BY LAUNCHING A NATIONAL EFFORT TO CONFRONT ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECTORS WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA'S CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY

ONCE AGAIN, MARTIN DEMONSTRATES THE POWER OF AN EXPERIENCED INTERNET WARRIOR TO UNLEASH NATIONWIDE HAVOC ON THE OBAMA OPERATION

(CHICAGO)(November 26, 2008) On November 7th Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from on Barack Obama. Martin, an adjunct professor of law, lit a fire that has begun to burn all across the United States as Americans respond by contacting Electoral College electors and demanding access to Barack Obama's original birth Certificate. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/11/26/a-last-electoral-hurdle-for-obama/

Fox News host Greta VanSusteren has chimed in by saying that all four national candidates should make their complete birth records available.

“It was a moment that had to be heard be understood,” says the Internet’s most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "Live on the Internet we created a spontaneous legal theory to justify questioning Obama's legitimacy at the Electoral College, and the American people have roared their approval." http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/Home/tabid/36/mid/363/newsid363/314/Default.aspx

"There may have been an 'election,'" says Martin, "but the results of that election were clouded by ACORN vote fraud and Obama's steadfast refusal to authorize access to his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. What is he hiding? Until he provides access, he has no legitimacy to serve as President of the United States. Obama issued a laser-printed facsimile and falsely represented this was a 'copy' of the 'original' certificate to FactCheck.org. That was a bald-faced lie. Why did he lie to the American people? Why?

"All of Obama's preening and posturing since November 4th is just more of the same. There is no substance to the man. Every elector has a constitutional right to demand access to the original birth certificate before voting on December 15th.

"We will continue our efforts to bring former Senator Obama to justice in the courtroom of American public opinion. We are not going to let this turkey slip us the bird on December 15th."
----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , , ,

Andy Martin asks Hawai'i court to reconsider flawed Obama ruling

Andy Martin says a Hawai'i court erred in refusing to release Barack Obama's birth certificate. Martin says the Hawai'i court ignored Hawai'i law and misconstrued the plain language in a lawsuit seeking access to Barack Obama's birth certificate. Martin is prepared to proceed with an appeal to Hawai'i's Intermediate Court of Appeals.

ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail (text only):
AndyMart20@aol.com

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII

CIVIL NUMBER:
08-1-2147-10-BIA
(Declaratory Judgment)

ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

LINDA LINGLE, in her
Official capacity as Governor
Of the State of Hawai’i,
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her
official capacity as Director
of the Department of Health,

Defendants.
_________________________________


MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S
ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008

Preliminary Statement

The Court managed to take what is at its core a simple and straightforward case seeking review of denial of access to a Hawai'i record, and to add layers of confusion and complexity that were totally unwarranted by the record made in open court on November 18th. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider, vacate and rehear the matters decided on November 19th using the correct procedures and standards of law.
Plaintiff initially thought that he would appeal the order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, but it would be a disservice to that Court to appeal such a mangled and needlessly confused record from the trial forum. Thus, the Rule 59 motion (see below) stays any appeal until a decision on this motion.

1. Procedural basis for reconsideration

Plaintiff is not aware if a judgment has been entered since he has not been served with any such document. Prior to entry of a judgment a Court has plenary power to review and reconsider an order. This motion is also filed under H.R.Civ.P. 59.

2. The Court applied an imaginary standard
to plaintiff's motion

Plaintiff's motion is attached as exhibit A. Plaintiff sought access to a birth certificate after denial by the defendants. In no place did the Plaintiff ever mention the word "injunction" and nothing in Plaintiff's motion constituted a request for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a remedy usually entered to preserve the status quo. Plaintiff was not seeking the preservation of any status quo. He was seeking review of denial of access to a historic public record, and asked the Court to expedite the matter based on both a lack of a factual dispute and intense national interest in the document. Neither of these issues converted a review proceeding into an injunction matter.
Despite the lack of any pleading seeking injunctive relief, the Court mischaracterized plaintiff's motion for review of denial of access as an "injunction" and then applied the heightened standard applicable to injunctive proceedings as a pretext to dismiss the action. This was clear error and a serious abuse of discretion.
For the court to create an imaginary request for an injunction and then deny that imaginary request deprived Plaintiff of due process of law.
Thus, the entirety of the Court's order is void for want of due process and must be reheard under a correct standard of review. The Court's behavior clearly "exceeded the bounds of reason [and] disregard rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Amfac v. Waikiki Beachcomber, 74 Haw. 85, 839 P.2d. 10, 26 (Haw. 1992).

3. The Court decided a nonexistent standing issue

Plaintiff sought access to a historic document on two grounds: (i) a Health statute vesting as court with authority to direct release, and (ii) the Hawai'i UIPA. Both the statute, which vests the court with discretion to hear requests for access, and the UIPA, provide for review by this Court. There is thus a statutory grant of standing to seek review of a denial of access.
There is no "standing" issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff does not need to show "injury" to seek access to a historic Hawai'i record. The AG's claim was complete nonsense. Why the Attorney General sought to garbage-up the record with bogus standing claims is a question that should concern the court. Why the Court threw in standing as an afterthought as a basis for dismissal, when there is no such issue, is bizarre.

4. Service of process was timely made

This lawsuit was filed in mid-October. Plaintiff sought to expedite the proceedings because of the intense national interest. He lives in Chicago. He is based in New York, some 8,000 miles from the forum. The Court entered an order to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. Defendants claimed they had not been served (which has no bearing on an order to show cause, which they admitted had been served; at hearing they admitted they had also been served with the original pleadings on October 17th). After defendants objected and demanded service a second time, Plaintiff served the defendants and filed his proof of service on November 19th. Thus, there was not the remotest basis for dismissal on the basis of failure to serve the defendants.
The Court's apparent attempt to impose thirty days as a basis for dismissal is an unreasonable period to impose on Plaintiff to serve defendants a second time when he is an out of state litigant. Plaintiff was well within the applicable time limits when he served the defendants and no reasonable person could argue to the contrary.

5. The court ignored the state of the record

Plaintiff was seeking review of a denial of access to a historic public record. As Plaintiff set forth, there was a serious waiver issue, since the parties themselves had discussed the document openly, and the "document" has falsely been portrayed as already being disclosed. The Court ignored the waiver issue. Based on the lack of any response by the defendants, waiver mandated release of the document.

Conclusion

At a certain point, the cumulatative errors in this proceeding raise an inference of harassment of an out-of-state litigant. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, a non-Hawai'i resident should obtain the same due process that a native or resident receives. Hawai'i is not a private club that is maintained for the benefit of insiders.
Plaintiff came before the Court in good faith seeking access to a historic document. There is not a shred of evidence in the record to defeat his claim. The court's constant mischaracterization of his claims and misapplication of the rules constitute a breach of judicial decorum.
The dismissal should be vacated and the matter should be heard before a judge who will faithfully and fairly apply the law. If this Court honestly disagrees with Plaintiff's arguments, it should simply say so and send a clean record to the ICA, and not try to create cobwebs to conceal legerdemain and prevarication based on an attempt to evade the obviously applicable facts and principles of law.

Dated: New York, NY
November 25, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, November 21, 2008

Hawai'i court blocks release of Barack Obama's birth certificate

Andy Martin hopes to appeal Honolulu court decision on Obama birth certificate. "Another court, another cover-up," says Martin. "What is wrong with our country when someone can be 'elected' without providing access to the original copy of their birth certificate? Something is drastically wrong with our democracy, and every American will pay the price. We will be issuing a fund raising appeal to continue this battle on appeal. The claim that a president's birth certificate is secret is complete nonsense."

Andy Martin hopes to appeal Honolulu court decision on Obama birth certificate, but has not yet received a copy of the ruling

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN PLANS TO APPEAL DISMISSAL OF BARACK OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT, SAYS HE HAS NOT YET RECEIVED A COPY

MARTIN SAYS JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFLECTS "CALLOUS DISREGARD" FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

(NEW YORK)(November 21, 2008) For those of you who are not familiar with the peculiar highways and byways of the judicial process, welcome to the strange ways of the court system in Hawai'i. Apparently my lawsuit in a Honolulu state court has been dismissed.

Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of the decision. Despite the significance of the court order, I was not given a courtesy notice when it was entered in Honolulu, apparently late Wednesday, although I was in Honolulu all day on Wednesday.

Thursday all day I was traveling back to New York and was unavailable. I did not get back to New York until 8:00 A.M. Friday.

I was alerted by a reader's e-mail that something had happened, and went to the Honolulu Advertiser's web site where I found a complete story, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081121/NEWS20/811210355/1001/localnewsfront.

Obviously I was unable to respond to phone calls while in the air, and when I checked my e-mails today the Advertiser reporter had not left a phone number to call him back.

The Court did not fax my office a copy and so I have no immediate way of seeing a copy of the decision. I assume the Advertiser's news report is a fair summary of the decision.

Depending on what the response is to a fund appeal, I will certainly appeal this decision to the Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals. The trial court's interpretation of the relevant statute appears to be a wooden reading of the law. The claim that there is a lack of historical significance to the birth certificate of a president of the United States is a classic example of how utter nonsense can exist in the judicial system.

I will solicit input from my audience as to whether they feel that pursuit of the appeal is a worthwhile venture and will proceed accordingly.

I understand how 150 million Americans are frustrated by the callous disregard which the court system has shown for access to vital, basic information about Barack Obama, the "mystery man" who has been elected president by the "Mainstream Media of the United States."

However other than this mild criticism, I believe it is more appropriate to proceed through the judicial process, and that is the course I intend to follow on the issue of access to Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 original birth certificate.

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,

Hawai'i court blocks release of Barack Obama's birth certificate


Andy Martin hopes to appeal Honolulu court decision on Obama birth certificate. "Another court, another cover-up," says Martin. "What is wrong with our country when someone can be 'elected' without providing access to the original copy of their birth certificate? Something is drastically wrong with our democracy, and every American will pay the price. We will be issuing a fund raising appeal to continue this battle on appeal. The claim that a president's birth certificate is secret is complete nonsense."


Andy Martin plans appeal of Honolulu court decision on Obama birth certificate, has not yet received a copy of the ruling

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN PLANS TO APPEAL DISMISSAL OF BARACK OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT, SAYS HE HAS NOT YET RECEIVED A COPY

MARTIN SAYS JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFLECTS "CALLOUS DISREGARD" FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

(NEW YORK)(November 21, 2008) For those of you who are not familiar with the peculiar highways and byways of the judicial process, welcome to the strange ways of the court system in Hawai'i. Apparently my lawsuit in a Honolulu state court has been dismissed.

Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of the decision. Despite the significance of the court order, I was not given a courtesy notice when it was entered in Honolulu, apparently late Wednesday, although I was in Honolulu all day on Wednesday.

Thursday all day I was traveling back to New York and was unavailable. I did not get back to New York until 8:00 A.M. Friday.

I was alerted by a reader's e-mail that something had happened, and went to the Honolulu Advertiser's web site where I found a complete story, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081121/NEWS20/811210355/1001/localnewsfront.

Obviously I was unable to respond to phone calls while in the air, and when I checked my e-mails today the Advertiser reporter had not left a phone number to call him back.

The Court did not fax my office a copy and so I have no immediate way of seeing a copy of the decision. I assume the Advertiser's news report is a fair summary of the decision.

Depending on what the response is to a fund appeal, I will certainly appeal this decision to the Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals. The trial court's interpretation of the relevant statute appears to be a wooden reading of the law. The claim that there is a lack of historical significance to the birth certificate of a president of the United States is a classic example of how utter nonsense can exist in the judicial system.

I will solicit input from my audience as to whether they feel that pursuit of the appeal is a worthwhile venture and will proceed accordingly.

I understand how 150 million Americans are frustrated by the callous disregard which the court system has shown for access to vital, basic information about Barack Obama, the "mystery man" who has been elected president by the "Mainstream Media of the United States."

However other than this mild criticism, I believe it is more appropriate to proceed through the judicial process, and that is the course I intend to follow on the issue of access to Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 original birth certificate.

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Andy Martin launches a “National Conversation” on how to oppose Barack Obama

How do Republicans adapt to the “Age of Obama?” Obama author Martin says that Republicans, Democrats and independents have every right to persist in their opposition to Barack Obama’s agenda for America.

Andy Martin says, “Our great national tantrum is over; our great national nightmare is just beginning”

A “National Conversation” on Barack Obama launches in Honolulu on Wednesday evening, November 19th

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin wants to jump start a series of local initiatives, to help Americans learn how to deal with and defend against Barack Obama’s socialist agenda for the United States.

November 19th Martin launches the first of a series of nationwide meetings to prod the Obama opposition into focusing on issues and priorities

(HONOLULU)(November 19, 2008) Aloha from Hawai’i.

Let’s be honest. We need to decide and determine how to deal with Barack Obama. Americans have just indulged in a collective tantrum. They punished the Republicans for the past, by punishing every American in the future, and imposed as retribution for Republican failures a nation now led temporarily by Barack Obama.

Tantrums in nations, like tantrums in children, can often have unforeseen and unpleasant consequences. Our great national nightmare is just beginning.

But it is not enough just to rail at Obama. We need to develop coherent approaches to dealing with the threat he poses to our democracy.

Wednesday evening I hope to jump start a series of informal meetings that will gradually expand into a national conversation on how we oppose Barack Obama’s agenda.

John McCain and many in the professional political class have completely capitulated. They are addicted to being part of the action. But sometimes the best policy is to stay back and step aside, to stand up for your policies and programs instead of standing down in favor of fake "national unity." The addicts tell us to “get behind” “our president.” What? Get behind someone who stands for everything we are against? Now we know why McCain lost. He was willing to surrender on election eve. No “opposition” for him. Well, yes, he was against spending money to study the DNA of bears. (A complete column on McCain’s failure as a candidate is in progress.)

No thanks, but I completely reject McCain’s nonsense. We have every right to continue in opposition. In Great Britain, for example and by comparison, an “opposition” party is an ingrained part of the national consciousness. No one asks or expects Conservatives to get behind the Socialists in Britain. Why should we pursue a self-defeating policy in the United States?

Those of us who stood for something, and stood against Obama on the basis of something, not “nothing,” have every right to continue in opposition as Obama tries to create “ACORN nation,” a United States run by affirmative action retreads such as Eric Holder and controlled by ACORN-style kleptocracies at the local and state level.

Still, being “against” is only a starting point, not an end in itself. How do we do “against?” This inquiry is not necessarily a partisan one. A lot of Democrats are going to be desperate in the days ahead. They drank Obama’s Kool-Aid thinking they were going to benefit. The first to feel the sting will probably be the United Auto Workers and the Big three auto manufacturers. I could be wrong, but I doubt any bailout will pass. We could have a bleak Christmas in prospect. The UAW will be howling. Let’s open a new dialog with labor.

Let’s talk. Most of all, let’s learn to work with our opponents again, instead of segregating conservatism with “antis” and negatives.

What are the priorities? Do we try to root out the anti-Obama snake-oil salesman posing as Obama opponents first? Do we look at issues, presidential appointees, right-wing, left-wing? Just what does “opposition” mean? How do we react when William Ayers walks into the White House?

What are our hopes, fears and expectations until the next national election in two years? (In Illinois we file for the 2010 election in just twelve months!) How do we take down the “Obama Dynasty?”

Want to vent about McCain? Vent.

What I envision is a “national conversation,” but one created locally and driven by the initiative of persons in various parts of the country. I’ll be there to help, suggest, try to keep us on track. But mostly this is going to be about you, and how you feel, not about someone trying to impose a top-down order on your views.

Lastly, we are Internet-empowered. The Internet probably saved John McCain from utter humiliation. The aggressive work of Obama opponents on the Internet kept him off guard, and kept McCain's support strong even though he was an increasingly weak candidate. Obama, of course, spins exactly the opposite claim, that Internet opposition strengthened him. Don't you believe it.

But for the economic collapse, the Internet and Governor Palin could have powered McCain into the White House.

Obama was a new kind of candidate who showed us a new kind of politics, based on vapors and visions, not substance and experience. We have two years to learn how to defend against Obama-style politics. If we fail, America fails. Let’s start, let’s try and let’s do our best. The national journey begins in Honolulu, November 19th.

Republicans, Democrats and independents can continue to make common cause against Obama. Republicans also need to become a national party again. A nation that is splintered by warring geographic regions is a splintered nation. Let’s do what we can to provide a viable alternative to Obamaism. There is no other choice.

MEETING DETAILS:

LOCATION:

Ala Moana Park; meet at the entrance to Ala Moana Park at Ala Moana Boulevard and Atkinson Drive, look for the man with the “Obama” sign (that’s me), and find parking

TIME:

5:30 P.M. – 7:00 PM. At 7:00 P.M. sharp we disband. No endless blather.

CONTACT:

(917) 664-9329 Andy Martin

DATE:

Today, November 19th

---------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Honolulu court conducts vigorous hearing on Barack Obama’s “real,” “original birth certificate”

Andy Martin awaits Hawai’i court ruling on Barack Obama’s typewritten, 1961 birth certificate

Wednesday, November 19th Obama author Andy Martin will launch a “National Conversation on the Future of America” under Barack Obama, and the future of the anti-Obama movement. ContrarianCommentary.com columnist Martin seeks to begin a dialog and discussion on how people who reject the regime of Barack Obama will continue to manifest their opposition. Martin is the author of “Obama: The Man behind The mask.” He is considering writing a second book on the 2008 presidential campaign.


Andy Martin awaits Hawai’i court ruling on Obama birth certificate
“National conversation” on Obama set to launch in Honolulu Wednesday evening

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Hawai’i judge conducts vigorous hearing on Obama birth certificate battle, reserves ruling

Andy Martin will launch a “National Conversation on the Future of America” Wednesday evening in Honolulu

(HONOLULU)(November 18, 2008) Aloha from Hawai’i.

A Honolulu circuit judge heard vigorous arguments in the lawsuit filed by Obama author Andy Martin. Martin is seeking access to Barack Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. The judge reserved judgment.

“We had about a half-hour hearing,” Martin states. “Both the Attorney General and I vigorously presented our respective positions. The Court gave no indication of when or how the ruling could come or what the result will be.

“I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and as soon as it arrives we will post it on our blogs. People should be able to read the arguments in Court. Rather than characterize what was said, I will allow everyone to review the presentation for themselves.

“Tuesday afternoon through the gracious assistance of a local supporter I was able to visit the National Cemetery where the ashes of Barack Obama’s grandfather are interred. The Punchbowl Cemetery is very still, and very moving. I am always brought to deep emotion by the graves of the unknown, known only to God, who answered the call and gave their lives in our service. The famous war correspondent Ernie Pyle is also buried at Punchbowl.

“Sadly, there was no ornamentation or remembrance at the plaque of Stanley Dunham. Obama’s memorialization of his family members seems to be limited to the occasional photo op. I hope to have a detailed column on Madelyn Dunham’s memorial as soon as possible, but Wednesday we will be busily working away in the Courthouse again. We are trying to utilize our time in Honolulu as intensively as possible.

“Wednesday at 5:30 P.M. we will launch our National Conversation on the Future of America under Barack Obama and the future of the anti-Obama movement. We will issue details late Tuesday night. Anyone wanting to attend can just show up.

“We will be taking the National Conversation around the country, to South Florida in November, and Northern and Southern California in December, to anywhere and everywhere people are interested. But we thought we would try our best to launch these informal meetings in Hawai’i, where Obama began, and where the movement to remove him from office in 2012 should also begin.

“All are welcome to join us for a free form discussion,” Martin stated. “If anyone who was in court Tuesday shows up, they can deliver their own impression of what happened.”

A formal announcement will follow in a few hours.

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Barack Obama birth certificate battle unfolds in Honolulu court on Tuesday, November 18th

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin has landed in Honolulu
to lead the fight for access to Obama’s family records.
Martin will ask a Hawai’i circuit judge to direct state officials to release Barack Obama’s original, typewritten 1962 birth certificate. The Honolulu hearing is the first judicial proceeding to consider the birth certificate question in open court. Andy is a graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law (J.D.) and a former adjunct professor at the City University of New York.


Andy Martin lands in Honolulu to prepare for court hearing in Obama birth certificate battle

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN IS BACK IN HONOLULU TO FIGHT FOR ACCESS TO BARACK OBAMA’S ORIGINAL, TYPEWRITTEN 1961 BIRTH CERTIFICATE

AN INSIDE LOOK AT THE PREPARATION NECESSARY TO PRESENT A COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 8,000 MILES AWAY FROM HOME

(HONOLULU)(November 16, 2008) Aloha from Hawai’i.

I landed in Honolulu Friday and we have set up a fully functional “fighting camp” to prepare for the court hearing Tuesday, November 18th at 10:30 A.M. on access to Barack Obama’s birth certificate

This will be the first court hearing anywhere on access to the original, 1961 certificate. The only state that has jurisdiction over such a lawsuit is Hawai’i, because Hawai’i officials are the custodians of the 1961 typewritten paperwork.

Before we get to the back story, let me start with a disclaimer. I have no idea what the judge will do on Tuesday. I make no predictions, except one: I will prepare to the best of my ability and present as professional a case as the judge permits. Monday morning I will be on the street serving papers and filing with the Clerk in preparation for Tuesday.

And, looking ahead, whatever happens on Tuesday, on Wednesday we hope to launch my “Conversation With America” about our future course of action in an Obama administration. I invite all of you to join in and support this mission.

Just as the FBI always attends every Gambino Family funeral to see who is there, ContrarianCommentary.com was in Honolulu Friday to observe the “independent” (not family-sponsored) “memorial service” held in memory of Barack Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. We will have a full column later Sunday, or possibly Monday.

It occurred to me that you might appreciate some insight into the effort that goes into preparing and presenting a major piece of litigation 8,000 miles away from home.

Anyone who has read our Memorandum of Law (see the ContrarianCommentary.com blogs below for a full copy) will not be surprised that it took us the better part of a week to analyze, research, write and finalize a 25-page document (which we will be filing with the Clerk on Monday morning) setting forth why Obama’s birth certificate must be made public.

If a large law firm was handling the case of Martin vs. Obama, they would probably send a minimum team of four lawyers as well as support personnel. They would have a trial counsel, a couple of associates, and a senior partner to guide the overall process. There would be at least one paralegal, possibly more. That’s why high stakes litigation is so costly.

Martin vs. Obama is a high stakes lawsuit: it seeks to open a vital record of American history to public review and analysis.

And I will be working alone.

Ask any lawyer: it’s not easy landing in a strange town, setting up an office and firing off legal documents in a controversial constitutional case. But we managed to file the lawsuit two days after arriving in Honolulu in October, and now we are back for the first court hearing anywhere to address the issue of Barack Obama’s origins.

Landing in an unfamiliar city, any lawyer would need a support network. We managed to recreate our October “fighting camp” in 24 hours and are up and running. I dragged a printer on the 12 hour flight because we have to be able to react immediately to any development. Saturday morning we were out assembling office supplies to be ready to move quickly on Monday morning.

I even purchased a box of envelopes so that if we have a breather, we can start mailing out thank you notes to everyone who contributed to the financial support of this very costly and complex venture. There is no wasted time on a trip of this nature, and no wasted money.

I will take time off Sunday morning to attend services at Saint Andrews (Episcopal) cathedral in downtown Honolulu. And I forgot to pack my sunglasses, so I need to go shopping for a pair.

Unlike other lawsuits involving Obama, mine is narrowly and specifically focused on access to the original, typewritten 1961 certificate which Hawai’i officials have confirmed they possess. There is no way anyone can express an opinion on the circumstances of Obama’s birth without seeing the vital gateway document. I have refrained from speculating on the contents of the original because my focus is on expressing an informed opinion (a term CNN once made fund of).

Mr. Obama and his Chicago crew have been very crafty in creating a cloud of confusion over the “abstract” that he furnished to FactCheck.org as a purported original birth certificate, when obviously it was nothing of the sort. Many millions of people were confused even though the term “abstract” was clearly visible on the FactCheck.org site (and even though FactCheck.org seems to have missed that significance, as well).

We will also be continuing and conducting the research and investigation we began in October to document Obama’s origins in Hawai’i with interviews and contacts with people who knew his family and the other “players” in the Honolulu dramas of the 1970’s and 80’s.

As these comments are being prepared Sunday morning I can only conclude with a sense of deep humility at the enormity of the task and the nature of the burden. I continue to bear Barack Obama no ill will. Nevertheless, I passionately and sincerely believe that he owes the American people a detailed exposition of both his personal and his family history, and that he has not been candid with the American people. Without candor, he will not be able to establish the legitimacy that is essential for national leadership. He remains a stranger to the American people.

Barack Obama and his character assassins such as Robert Gibbs have done everything they can to demonize and defeat and intimidate me. They have failed utterly and abjectly. Tuesday morning I will stand up in court, stand tall, and stand proud for every American who believes Barack Obama needs to start telling the truth about himself. The election may be over. But the search for the truth about Mr. Obama is continuing.

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,

Barack Obama birth certificate battle unfolds in Honolulu court on Tuesday, October 18th


Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin has landed in Honolulu
to lead the fight for access to Obama’s family records.
Martin will ask a Hawai’i circuit judge to direct state officials to release Barack Obama’s original, typewritten 1962 birth certificate. The Honolulu hearing is the first judicial proceeding to consider the birth certificate question in open court. Andy is a graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law (J.D.) and a former adjunct professor at the City University of New York.



Andy Martin lands in Honolulu to prepare for court hearing in Obama birth certificate battle

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN IS BACK IN HONOLULU TO FIGHT FOR ACCESS TO BARACK OBAMA’S ORIGINAL, TYPEWRITTEN 1961 BIRTH CERTIFICATE

AN INSIDE LOOK AT THE PREPARATION NECESSARY TO PRESENT A COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 8,000 MILES AWAY FROM HOME

(HONOLULU)(November 16, 2008) Aloha from Hawai’i.

I landed in Honolulu Friday and we have set up a fully functional “fighting camp” to prepare for the court hearing Tuesday, November 18th at 10:30 A.M. on access to Barack Obama’s birth certificate

This will be the first court hearing anywhere on access to the original, 1961 certificate. The only state that has jurisdiction over such a lawsuit is Hawai’i, because Hawai’i officials are the custodians of the 1961 typewritten paperwork.

Before we get to the back story, let me start with a disclaimer. I have no idea what the judge will do on Tuesday. I make no predictions, except one: I will prepare to the best of my ability and present as professional a case as the judge permits. Monday morning I will be on the street serving papers and filing with the Clerk in preparation for Tuesday.

And, looking ahead, whatever happens on Tuesday, on Wednesday we hope to launch my “Conversation With America” about our future course of action in an Obama administration. I invite all of you to join in and support this mission.

Just as the FBI always attends every Gambino Family funeral to see who is there, ContrarianCommentary.com was in Honolulu Friday to observe the “independent” (not family-sponsored) “memorial service” held in memory of Barack Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. We will have a full column later Sunday, or possibly Monday.

It occurred to me that you might appreciate some insight into the effort that goes into preparing and presenting a major piece of litigation 8,000 miles away from home.

Anyone who has read our Memorandum of Law (see the ContrarianCommentary.com blogs below for a full copy) will not be surprised that it took us the better part of a week to analyze, research, write and finalize a 25-page document (which we will be filing with the Clerk on Monday morning) setting forth why Obama’s birth certificate must be made public.

If a large law firm was handling the case of Martin vs. Obama, they would probably send a minimum team of four lawyers as well as support personnel. They would have a trial counsel, a couple of associates, and a senior partner to guide the overall process. There would be at least one paralegal, possibly more. That’s why high stakes litigation is so costly.

Martin vs. Obama is a high stakes lawsuit: it seeks to open a vital record of American history to public review and analysis.

And I will be working alone.

Ask any lawyer: it’s not easy landing in a strange town, setting up an office and firing off legal documents in a controversial constitutional case. But we managed to file the lawsuit two days after arriving in Honolulu in October, and now we are back for the first court hearing anywhere to address the issue of Barack Obama’s origins.

Landing in an unfamiliar city, any lawyer would need a support network. We managed to recreate our October “fighting camp” in 24 hours and are up and running. I dragged a printer on the 12 hour flight because we have to be able to react immediately to any development. Saturday morning we were out assembling office supplies to be ready to move quickly on Monday morning.

I even purchased a box of envelopes so that if we have a breather, we can start mailing out thank you notes to everyone who contributed to the financial support of this very costly and complex venture. There is no wasted time on a trip of this nature, and no wasted money.

I will take time off Sunday morning to attend services at Saint Andrews (Episcopal) cathedral in downtown Honolulu. And I forgot to pack my sunglasses, so I need to go shopping for a pair.

Unlike other lawsuits involving Obama, mine is narrowly and specifically focused on access to the original, typewritten 1961 certificate which Hawai’i officials have confirmed they possess. There is no way anyone can express an opinion on the circumstances of Obama’s birth without seeing the vital gateway document. I have refrained from speculating on the contents of the original because my focus is on expressing an informed opinion (a term CNN once made fund of).

Mr. Obama and his Chicago crew have been very crafty in creating a cloud of confusion over the “abstract” that he furnished to FactCheck.org as a purported original birth certificate, when obviously it was nothing of the sort. Many millions of people were confused even though the term “abstract” was clearly visible on the FactCheck.org site (and even though FactCheck.org seems to have missed that significance, as well).

We will also be continuing and conducting the research and investigation we began in October to document Obama’s origins in Hawai’i with interviews and contacts with people who knew his family and the other “players” in the Honolulu dramas of the 1970’s and 80’s.

As these comments are being prepared Sunday morning I can only conclude with a sense of deep humility at the enormity of the task and the nature of the burden. I continue to bear Barack Obama no ill will. Nevertheless, I passionately and sincerely believe that he owes the American people a detailed exposition of both his personal and his family history, and that he has not been candid with the American people. Without candor, he will not be able to establish the legitimacy that is essential for national leadership. He remains a stranger to the American people.

Barack Obama and his character assassins such as Robert Gibbs have done everything they can to demonize and defeat and intimidate me. They have failed utterly and abjectly. Tuesday morning I will stand up in court, stand tall, and stand proud for every American who believes Barack Obama needs to start telling the truth about himself. The election may be over. But the search for the truth about Mr. Obama is continuing.

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Obama court hearing to focus on actions of Hawai'i officials, need for disclosure

Obama author Andy Martin heads for historic court hearing in Honolulu. Martin will arrive in Honolulu Friday evening to prepare for a historic court hearing in the Circuit Court Tuesday, November 18th at 10:30 A.M. "Some people want to run up the white flag and kiss Obama's fanny," Martin says. "In the words of John Paul Jones, 'I've just begin to fight.' Unless and until Obama releases records about his past—his birth certificate, college files and similar information—he lacks legitimacy. I do not think any American owes loyalty to Obama's radical socialist revolution, which is bent on destroying our way of life. Why will Barack Obama not release his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate?"

[This document has been reformatted for the Internet]

ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel.(866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail (text only):
AndyMart20@aol.com




CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII

CIVIL NUMBER:
08-1-2147-10-BIA
(Declaratory Judgment)-


ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

LINDA LINGLE, in her
Official capacity as Governor
Of the State of Hawai’i,
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her
official capacity as Director
of the Department of Health,

Defendants.
_________________________________

MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE AND
IN OPPOSITION TO
NOTION FILED BY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Preliminary Statement
When this case was filed on October 17, 2008, the status of the document to which Plaintiff was seeking access was one involving intense political curiosity. Today, the underlying principles of this lawsuit have irretrievably morphed: the status of the document sub judice has now become a part of American history. Plaintiff's right to examine the original 1961, typewritten document—now a crucial record of American history—has become overwhelmingly stronger.
Therefore, for the reasons that follow in this Memorandum, this Court at the hearing on November 18th must apply the legal principles applicable to access to historical documents.
I.
The birth certificate and efforts to
manipulate the birth certificate

A. Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter "Obama") was apparently born in Honolulu in August, 1961. HHHHe may have been born elsewhere and had his birth registered in Honolulu. We do not know.
B. The State of Hawai'i generated a typewritten Certificate of Live Birth ("COLB") for Mr. Obama in 1961. There may have also been a separate document issued by the hospital, if he was born in a hospital, certifying to the birth. These documents collectively will be referred to as the "birth certificate." We know that the 1961 document is in existence because defendant Fukino claimed on October 31st that she had examined the document, see Exhibit A.
C. In June, 2008 Obama released a copy of his COLB to some media, though not all. See Exhibit B. The COLB was purported to be an "original," although obviously it bears no resemblance to the original, typewritten 1961 document.
In response, some individuals have posted on the Internet copies of their temporally similar COLB's: they bear no relationship to Exhibit B, see e.g. Exhibit C, furnished to Plaintiff by a civic-minded citizen (original copy available on request). Exhibit C contains considerably more detailed information than Exhibit B (p. 3).
D. The firestorm over where Obama was born, and to whom, continued to grow. After Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, seeking access under both the Hawai'i Public Health Statistics Act as well as the Uniform Information Procedures Act (UIPA"), defendant Fukino apparently ordered retrieval of the 1961 original and claimed to have examined it.
But Fukino went further, soliciting media coverage and expressing opinions about the ultimate facts contained in the document. Fukino also tried to use her professional access to the record to politically attack citizens who had raised legitimate questions about the document, see Exhibit B, p. 1.
E. On November 4, 2008, Obama became President-elect. Whatever prior status the COLB had as a document of intense political interest, a fortiori on November 4th the document passed "into the ages" as a vital, original manuscript of American history.
F. This Court has issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why Plaintiff should not be granted access to and a copy of the file relating to the original, typewritten 1961 COLB and any related documents from the hospital on which the COLB is based. The Attorney General ("AG") has filed a cross-motion to dismiss. The court is scheduled to conduct a hearing on all matters on November 18, 2008.
II.
The applicable legal principles in this lawsuit
Plaintiff respectfully submits that there are three overarching principles of law that govern a procedural analysis of this litigation.
The first principle is the well-established doctrine of waiver.
The second principle is the canons of statutory construction that apply to analysis of the claim in this lawsuit.
Finally, since this lawsuit was filed under Hawai'i law, Hawai'i law controls the decision of this Court.
Each issue will be addressed in turn.
III.
The waiver issue
A. The Ashwander doctrine
Hawai'i has adopted the Ashwander doctrine, State v. Lo, 66 haw. 653, 675 P.2d 754, 757 (Haw. 1983) citing Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)(Brandeis, J., concurring), see also State v. Poaipuni, 98 Haw. 387, 49 P.3rd 353, 367 (Haw. 2002)(Moon, J., concurring). Ashwander provides that a court will decide a case on the narrowest possible grounds necessary to a decision.
In this lawsuit, for example, if the case can be decided on the basis of "waiver," the Court does not need to resolve statutory questions. If the Court can decide the issues based on statutory construction of the plain language and structure of the statute, legislative intent is unnecessary. If statutory construction is sufficient, the Court need not address constitutional claims.
B. Hawai'i waiver principles
Hawai'i law clearly recognizes the principle of waiver in civil matters, Uncle John's vs. Mid-Pacific, 71 Haw. 412, 794 P.2d 614, 616-617 (Haw. 1990), Great American v. Aetna Casualty, 76 Haw. 346, 876 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Haw. 1994). The best analysis of the definition of waiver that falls squarely on the convoluted issues of this case, however, is found at Ikeoka v. Kong, 47 Haw. 220, 386 P.2d 855, 870 (Haw. 1963) in a concurring opinion by Justice Lewis:
'The question of whether or not a given state of facts brings the case within principles of the law of waiver is not always an easy one to determine. In Pabst Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee, 126 Wis. 110, 116, [105 N.W. 563] a statement of the principles which should govern in such cases, and which meets with our approval, is as follows: 'It would seem that the more satisfactory ground on which to support the doctrine of waiver is that it is a rule of judicial policy, the legal outgrowth of judicial adhorrence, so to speak, of a person's taking inconsistent positions and gaining advantages thereby through the aid of courts,--a rule by which, regardless [47 Haw. 249] of absence of any element of estoppel or consideration as those terms are popularly understood, the maxim that one shall not be permitted to blow hot, then with advantage to himself turn and blow cold, within limits sanctioned by long experience as required for the due administration of justice, has been prohibitively applied. * * *'' Scott v. Pilipo, 25 Haw. 386, 391.
C. Obama's waiver
Obama delivered a purported "original" copy of his COLB to FactCheck.org, and apparently other Internet media as well, see Exhibit B. Clearly, what Obama claimed was not true. The document he produced was not even remotely a copy of the original, typewritten 1961 paper in Dr. Fukino's possession. Having (i) released what he claimed was the "original," and (ii) having been found to have dissembled, Obama has waived any objections to release of the "real" original document.
In the words of Justice Lewis, Obama cannot be allowed to "blow hot" and then use the defendants as a beard to "blow cold." He claimed his COLB was an "original," when in fact it was a modern, laser-printed facsimile of official records (an "abstract") and not even remotely a copy of the 1961 typewritten original. Since Obama has purported to disclose the "original," he has placed the defendants' copy of the "actual" original in the public domain for comparative purposes.
The defendants are now estopped from asserting that access should be denied to the 1961 typewritten original when Obama has expressly claimed that he published his "original" on the Internet, see Exhibit B ("FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.")
FactCheck.org's statement was objectively and verifiably false. The law does not allow such a blatantly fraudulent maneuver to stand: the claim that the laser-printed document was an "original" 1961 document was obviously untrue. FactCheck.org may have been fooled; plaintiff was not (which is why he is respected nationally and internationally as an investigative writer and researcher, see Part V (A), infra).
It is unavoidably clear that Obama has sought to "blow hot" and then "blow cold." He claimed his COLB was an "original," when in a fact it was a modern, laser-printed facsimile from official records (an "abstract") and not even remotely a copy of the 1961 typewritten original. Since Obama has purported to disclose the "original," he has placed the "actual" original in the public domain for comparative purposes. The defendants are estopped from now asserting that access should be denied to the 1961 typewritten original.
The law does not permit a government agency to be used to shield fraudulent manipulation; the claim that the laser-printed document was an "original" 1961 document was obviously untrue. Obama, having waived access to the "original" by his own admission, the defendants cannot now turn his waiver on its head and say they will deny access to their copy of the original document.
Because his secrecy rights were waived by Obama himself in releasing the document, the defendants have no right to engage in further manipulation and legerdemain to provide political cover for management of the truth. That is not their role and, most egregiously, their actions are a clear misuse of the legislature's intent in creating a basis for bona fide secrecy, but certainly not manipulative secrecy.
D. Fukino's waiver
Defendant is a medical doctor and a custodian of health records. She is neither a political battering ram nor an agent of presidential politics. She solicited a role as the former while inserting herself in the latter.
In Justice Lewis' language, Dr. Fukino can no more
"blow hot" and then "blow cold" than Obama. Exhibit A and other local coverage reflects that Fukino solicited coverage on the last weekend of the presidential election by purporting to express an expert opinion on a document that she refused to make public and where she was not remotely qualified as an expert. The original 1961 COLB may confirm what she claimed, or it may not. It may eliminate questions or it may raise new ones. We simply don't know.
In a democracy, and under clear principles of Hawai'ian law stated below, we don't have to take Fukino's word for what the document is or contains; we have a right to examine the original.
Dr. Fukino cannot make declaratory statements about a public record and then refuse to allow the media to cross-examine her claims by examining the original document that she is discussing. She clearly manifested an attempt to use the statutory secrecy of her office for an improper and unlawful purpose, political manipulation. (Parenthetically, Fukino's desperate last-minute efforts only confirm the strength and success of Plaintiff's bona fide efforts to raise concerns about the manipulative actions of Hawai'i officials.)
If Fukino had merely exercised her right to go into the vault and examine the document in question, that would have in no way constituted a waiver. But she far exceeded her statutory duties, solicited massive media attention and interjected herself into political controversy and sought to bolster Obama on the final weekend of the election. That behavior blatantly exceeded both her statutory duties and professional competence, all while seeking to manipulate a document in her possession and control. The law does not allow a public official to so openly manipulate material and information in her possession.
Even if Obama had not already waived access to the material in Fukino's possession, there is no way anyone can test the accuracy and veracity of Fukino's unconditional claims without actually seeing the document concerning which she was offering testimony. Entirely and completely independently of Obama's waiver, Fukino waived the secrecy provisions of the statute by her own conduct or misconduct.
E. Historical waiver
Whatever may have been the analytical principles applicable to determining access to the material in question prior to November 4th, it is clear that on November 4th the status of the documents changed from political records to historical documents. There is no way Hawai'i can justify imposing secrecy on material involving a prominent figure in American history.
No one can legitimately argue that someone is going to engage in identity theft and hold himself or herself out as "Barack Obama," using and misusing the COLB. That contention is absurd on its face. So what is the basis to persist in concealing a document that has become controversial because of Parts C and D above? None whatsoever.
The statute in question was clearly intended to protect the privacy rights of private citizens, not to prevent access to vital historical material.
IV.
The statutory construction issue
A. The AG's omitted/manipulated statutory language
The AG's submission to this Court cited the relevant statutory language out of context and sought to turn the broad statutory language in exactly the opposite direction from the express language in the law itself. This legerdemain is unacceptable and should raise the eyebrows of the Court. Any time a public official cites a statute's language out of context, a question is raised as to "why?"
The critical statutory language of HRS §338-18(b) that the AG omitted from its Motion to Dismiss states:
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

The statute then goes on to enumerate the list of persons cited by the AG. The AG's omission of the introductory language to the section cited, when coupled with the AG's attempts to alter the context of the statutory language, is a serious distortion of the law's plain language.
Section 338-18(b) merely provides a list of persons who ipso facto are entitled to have a direct interest; by no reasonable reading can this language support the AG's position that the list following the preamble is exclusive instead of exemplary.
The term "direct and tangible interest," moreover, is not defined in the statute even though other critical terms are, see HRS §338-1. The omission of a definition of the term "direct and tangible interest," when considered in the context of 338-1, shows conclusively that the legislature did not intend for the exemplars provided in the statute to be a self-limiting and exclusive list of persons entitled to access.
Indeed, the statute itself provides an open-ended opportunity for access in 18(b)(9) by vesting this Court with untrammeled and unrestrained authority to order access to any person on such terms as the Court considers just and appropriate. No one can reasonably argue that 338-18(b)(9) in any way contains or places any limiting language on the common law and common sense authority of this Court to grant relief pursuant to Subsection (9), see Part V (B), infra.
B. Hawai'i principles of statutory construction
In the absence of a statutory definition for "direct and tangible interest," the court is left to fashion a definition or interpretation out of common language and common sense (see Part V (B), infra). As the Hawai'i ICA stated in Carlisle v. One (1) Boat, 118 Haw. 107, 185 P.3rd 855, 860 (Haw. ICA 2008):
A. Statutory Interpretation-Civil
Questions of statutory interpretation are questions
of law to be reviewed de novo under the right/wrong
standard.
Our statutory construction is guided by the following well established principles:
[When construing a statute,] our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose.
When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists.
In construing an ambiguous statute, the meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought by examining the context, with which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning. Moreover, the courts may resort to extrinsic aids in determining legislative intent. One avenue is the use of legislative history as an interpretive tool.
This court may also consider the reason and spirit of the law, and the cause that induced the legislature to enact it to discover its true meaning.
Lingle v. Hawai‘i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 107 Hawai‘i 178, 183, 111 P.3d 587, 592 (2005) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted) (quoting Guth v. Freeland, 96 Hawai‘i 147, 149-50, 28 P.3d 982, 984-95 (2001) ).
Is the underlying Health Act ambiguous? Plaintiff would argue that it is not. The statute clearly provides a list of persons or entities that are automatically entitled to access, but nowhere does the law state that the list is excusive.
The statute itself contains in Subsection (9), a wide-open grant of jurisdiction to order access to records based on any terms the Court finds just and reasonable. Nowhere is the Court's power under Subsection (9) limited or confined. Clearly, the legislature was anticipating precisely such a case as this one, where a legitimate author (see Part V (A), infra) and columnist seeks access to what have now become vital records in American history.
Any reasonable construction of the statutory language would yield ineluctably to the conclusion that the legislature has provided broad powers to any court to allow access on terms the court believes are just and reasonable.
V.
The constitutional issues
A. The Plaintiff's status
Plaintiff is a national and international authority on Obama. He authored the first commentary to raise questions about Obama's family history, in 2004. He has authored a 400+ page best selling book, see Exhibit D attached hereto, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask."
He has been asked to opine about Obama locally, nationally and internationally, on television and radio.
Plaintiff is also very well known because he has dug deeply into Obama's past and continually produced controversial interpretations of Obama's heritage and life experiences, particularly in areas where Obama has sought to conceal or occlude his prior associations. Thus, by no means is Plaintiff only a member of the "general public" or someone who has not established both his own and his audience's specialized interest in Obama.
B. The common law/constitutional right to access
Bona fide members of the media and authors such as Plaintiff enjoy a qualified constitutional and common law right to access vital public records. That general principle applies a fortiori to historical records concerning a President-elect of the United States.
The common law/constitutional right to access vital public records was explicitly set forth in two directly applicable Hawai'i Supreme Court cases, Honolulu Advertiser v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 580 P.2d 58 (Haw. 1978)("Takao"), and Estate of Campbell, 106 haw. 453, 106 P.3rd 1096 (Haw. 2005)("Campbell").
A. Because the term "direct and tangible interest" is not defined in the statute, this Court can look to Takao, where the Court stated that "We construe the phrase 'any party' to mean any person who seeks the transcript for a legitimate and proper purpose." 580 P.2d 61. Here, Plaintiff seeks access to the original typewritten 1961 COLB for what are facially "legitimate and proper purposes."
B. Takao establishes an unequivocal common law right to copy public records, 580 P.2d 61. The common law right is critical because in Campbell the Supreme Court underscored that its decision rested on the common law and did not need to go to the extent of making a constitutional determination, 106 P.3rd 1108 fn. 26:
Additionally, inasmuch as our policy of judicial openness is rooted in the common law, see Takao, 59 Haw. at 239, 580 P.2d at 61 (concluding that the "public does generally have the right, established by the common law, to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records"), we need not reach the issue of whether the right of access is also protected under both the federal and our state constitutions.

C. The Hawai'i Supreme Court decided an issue applicable above, namely how to construe the statute, in Campbell, 106 P.3rd 1101, where the Court stated:
Whether Appellants constitute "interested persons" as defined in HRS § 560:1-201 is a matter of statutory interpretation and therefore a question of law subject to de novo review. Ing v. Acceptance Ins. Co., 76 Hawai'i 266, 874 P.2d 1091 (1994). As oft-stated, "our primary duty [when interpreting statutes] is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is obtained primarily from the language of the statute itself." Id. at 270, 874 P.2d at 1095. We have also noted on several occasions that "where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, our only duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning." Id. (citing AIG Hawaii Ins. Co. v. Estate of Caraang, 74 Haw. 620, 634, 851 P.2d 321, 328 (1993)). In this case, the language of the relevant statutes is plain and unambiguous.
Plaintiff submits that the statute sub judice is equally "plain and unambiguous" in (i) placing no limits on the categories of persons entitled to access to records and merely providing an exemplary list of persons who receive automatic a priori access, and (ii) allowing a court to exercise its general jurisdiction concerning access determinations, as provided by Subsection (9). The Supreme Court also noted for purposes of this lawsuit that the general grant of jurisdiction under HRS §603-21.9 could be read in pari materia with Subsection (9) of the Health statute. 106 P.3rd 1107 fn. 21.
While the foregoing decisions did not involve access to a birth certificate, the broad constitutional right of access to public records fully encompasses the historical documents for which access is sought in this case.
VI.
The Uniform Information Practices Act
When this case began, Obama was a political figure. Today he is part of American history. Plaintiff would admit that as an abstract matter, it is a general canon of construction that the particular statute should control over the general. Thus, all other factors being equal or normal, HRS §338-18(b) would control over the UIPA, HRS §92F. The AG's claim in this regard would not be out of line in an ordinary lawsuit.
But this is no longer an ordinary case involving an ordinary citizen. The COLB relates to a President-elect of the United States. HRS §338-18 was intended to apply to the common or garden-variety information of an ordinary private citizen or quasi-private citizen. Obama is no longer a private citizen or quasi-private citizen. He is a part of American history. As such, this Court can properly apply the broader disclosure provisions of the UIPA to the issues presented in this case.
Plaintiff is no longer seeking access to a private person's personal records: he is seeking access to vital, original, historical documentation concerning the President-elect of the United States.
VII.
The Attorney General's arguments
A. With due respect, the AG has filed a motion to dismiss raising various defenses. The disingenuousness of the AG's arguments reflects a total lack of awareness of the post-November 4th reality, and bears no relationship to the foregoing principles and cases set forth in this Memorandum. The AG's arguments will be addressed in turn.
B. The AG's "standing" issue
1. The two "standing" cases cited by the AG have no relevance to the issues in this lawsuit. Where individuals seek to challenge governmental action, general standing principles apply. Here, an author seeks access to a public record that, on a number of grounds, is presumptively subject to inspection and copying, supra.
2. The cases cited by the AG also make no sense because, as shown in Plaintiff's prior arguments, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has established "openness" as the standard and empowered the Court to adjudicate disputes concerning access, Campbell, supra. How could someone seeking access under statutes--Subsection (9) and the UIPA having vested courts with jurisdiction to hear disputes--not have standing to seek access through judicial relief? The AG's standing claims border on nonsense.
C. The AG's "failure to state a claim" issue
Based on the prior Hawai'i case law which Plaintiff has cited, the AG's "failure to state a claim" argument is nonsense.
D. The AG's "no right to obtain a vital record" issue
1. The federal case law cited by the AG is federal law. Plaintiff rests his entire claim on Hawai'i law. The previously cited Hawai'i Supreme Court's decisions trump federal courts on questions of Hawai'i law and the power of this Court to grant relief.
2. The AG ignores the fact that in balancing the competing interests, Plaintiff is a legitimate author seeking access to a document of immense historical interest.
3. The AG seems to ignore (i) that Obama and Fukino have waived their claims, thereby at a minimum diluting their claims to privacy and (ii) a birth certificate with information 48 years old hardly constitutes "private" information, particularly when the person whose record is being sought has claimed to have already released "the original."
E. The AG's service of process issue
The Governor's office (though not the Governor in person) was personally served with the papers in this lawsuit, as was the AG's office. The AG trivializes the significance of this lawsuit and the important public issues presented by even raising such a defense. Moreover, Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause ("OSC"), which was issued by the Court, was properly served on the AG and brings the AG before the Court on Plaintiff's own moving papers.
By asking this Court to permit an expedited piggyback hearing and filing a motion to dismiss on a piggyback basis with Plaintiff's own hearing, the AG may have waived any claim of lack of service. Otherwise, the AG can respond to the OSC and Plaintiff will object to a hearing on service of process when the time to serve process has not finally expired.
The AG is claiming on the one hand that it wants an expedited hearing for which it has been fully served, while on the other hand objecting to service of process. Does the AG want an expedited hearing with actual notice, or is it going to litigate some form of hypothetical notice that it is claiming?
Plaintiff has requested clarification from the AG as to whether that office is going to pursue that claim in light of the video evidence of service of process.
Finally, the AG's office has failed to respond to Plaintiff's UIPA demand, attached hereto as Exhibit E. The Court should draw a very serious adverse inference from the AG's silence and lack of any response to UIPA, Ramil v. Keller, 68 Haw. 608, 726 P.2d 254 (Haw. 1986); Stender v. Vincent, 92 Haw. 355, 992 P.2d 50 (Haw. 2000). Will there have to be a second round of UIPA litigation? The AG has been silent.
The fact that the AG is reduced to making trivial defenses shows the paucity of substance in the arguments it is presenting in opposition to Plaintiff's powerful and overwhelming case for access.
CONCLUSION
As the foregoing facts establish, there has been a blatant attempt to distort, mislead, misrepresent and manipulate a vital record establishing Mr. Obama's birth. For some reason he does not want the original COLB to see the light of day. Why?
Whatever the Court's view of the statutory language concerning an ordinary private citizen, those views must now yield to the imperatives of history: the documents being sought now relate to American history and must be disclosed on that basis to media and scholars such as Plaintiff.
The legislature never intended that personal privacy for ordinary citizens could be used to prevent access to vital records of American history.
A reader is left with the unavoidable, nagging question: What does Obama have to hide, that he has put Plaintiff and the American people through a lawsuit to see the original, typewritten 1961 COLB? That question will be answered some day, in some way.
As Plaintiff shows above, this Court has the power to make the disclosure decision now. Most respectfully this Court is asked to do so forthwith. How can a President of the United States establish his legitimacy as a leader when he is hiding original documents about his life and origins? How?
Merely to reflect on the underlying odor of this lawsuit compels the question, "What are they trying to hide?" What? The defendants' evidence on that question is what authors, researchers, writers and columnists such as the Plaintiff have a constitutional right to examine and answer.
This Court should answer the threshold question by directing prompt disclosure to Plaintiff of the requested materials.
At the end of the day this lawsuit represents a test of and challenge to Hawaii's state governmental institutions and governing philosophy: is Hawai'i going to recognize and respect its obligations to history, or is the state government going to be run as a private club that conceals what may be unpleasant but what is nevertheless vital historical evidence?
Hawai'i, by an accident of history, has become the repository of what are now crucial historical records concerning the origins of a President. Under any reasonable interpretation of research and inquiry, such historical documents should be available to inspection and copying by the media and recognized writers/researchers such as Plaintiff. The Court should respect these imperatives and tell the defendants to stop stalling and release the records to the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se


Dated:

New York, NY
November 13, 2008

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Anti-Obama attorney Philip J. Berg faces disciplinary complaint

Andy Martin asks Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to investigate the bizarre litigation behavior of anti-Obama lawyer Philip J. Berg

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN ASKS PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY BOARD TO EXAMINE ATTORNEY PHILIP BERG'S PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

(NEW YORK)(November 12, 2008) Andy Martin has asked the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate the conduct of anti-Obama attorney Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, PA. "There have been a lot of questions, and criticism, swirling around Mr. Berg's behavior," Martin stated. "I thought his behavior merited a look by the Disciplinary Board. That way there can be a fair and impartial examination of his claims and actions."

A copy of Martin's Statement, which is part of Martin's form complaint, (faxed to the DB today, November 12th) follows:

November 12, 2008

Philip J. Berg contacted me in mid-August about a complaint he proposed to file in federal court. He sent me the complaint to review, and I advised him the complaint was nonsense. He was suing the wrong parties in the wrong court for the wrong relief. Berg said he wanted to "enjoin the Democratic National Convention," which caused me to question his sanity. He pleaded that Barack Obama was "born in Kenya" when there is not a shred of credible evidence to support this claim.

He filed his complaint and then began issuing a series of asinine news releases about the progress of his lawsuit.

Berg is playing on the vulnerability of people who intensely dislike President-elect Barack Obama, and using his inflated accusations to solicit money from the public. He constantly exaggerates or misrepresents the facts. In early September persons acting on his behalf claimed there was a "court order" for Obama to produce a birth certificate. No such order existed.

Then he claimed Obama was in "default" and had "admitted" he was born in Kenya. This was compete nonsense. As someone who is a genuine critic of Mr. Obama, I know firsthand what confusion Berg creates with his false and misleading claims. Most recently he or persons acting in concert with him have suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court "ordered" a response to his nonsense. The Court has done nothing of the sort. The court's rules simply provide a thirty-day period for responses.

I don’t know whether Berg suffers from an emotional disturbance, or is merely a money-grubbing huckster, or what, but Berg's behavior is undermining public faith in the integrity of the Pennsylvania legal profession.

Berg has been disciplined in the past for misconduct:

http://systocracy.com/Bergmalpracticetwo
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05d0521p.pdf

Lawyers are entitled to engage in vigorous advocacy. They are encouraged to extend and revise legal precedents. But they are not entitled to file delusional claims without a scintilla of support, particularly when they then use these delusional claims as a basis to solicit money from the public.

Mr. Berg has previously claimed that the U.S. Government blew up the World Trade Center, again without shred of evidence to support his nonsense.

He is a threat to vulnerable citizens who tend to believe his false claims and give him money on the false assumption that Berg is acting in good faith. By stealing small amounts of money from people across the nation he has flown under the radar of professional discipline. No competent attorney could have acted as Berg did during the past three months. His behavior in federal court, all of which is a public record, is outrageous.
---------------------------------------------
A copy of Martin's complaint is available by fax (not e-mail)
---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 10, 2008

The strange behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg

Why would a Philadelphia lawyer file frivolous claims in federal courts about Barack Obama? Is it possible the lawyer is trying to divert attention from serious questions that exist about Obama's birth certificate and troubled and confusing family history?


Andy Martin speculates on the bizarre litigation behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

PHILADELPHIA LAWYER PHILIP J. BERG SAYS HE IS AN OPPONENT OF BARACK OBAMA; IS HE?

BERG'S PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS MOTIVES AND COMPETENCE.

(NEW YORK)(November 11, 2008) Some time in mid-August I began to get phone calls from a lawyer's office in Philadelphia. The lawyer was Philip J. Berg.

I eventually spoke with Mr. Berg. He explained that he was preparing to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama and a number of other parties. Berg asked if I would review the case before it was filed, and I agreed.

I carefully read Berg's initial complaint. (Some of the confirming e-mails are in the hands of Patriot Brigade Talk Radio Network.) I advised Berg's office that his lawsuit would not fly in federal court. His joinder of the Federal Election Commission was utter nonsense. Naming the Democratic Party was questionable. Seeking to enjoin the Party's convention was silliness. For an ordinary voter to sue Obama was a lost cause; I explained that already this year two judges had ruled individuals lacked legal standing to file such a claim. Berg sent me a revised version of his lawsuit that was equally deficient.

Berg has tried to pretend that his lack of "standing" is a technicality. On the contrary, in federal courts standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue. State courts have broad "general" jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. I explained to Berg how he could file a meritorious lawsuit in state court but he was frantic. "I want to file before the Democratic Convention so I can apply for an injunction," he said. At that point I decided Berg was a loon and had no further contact.

Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.

I did not become concerned until a New York radio talk show host who is a friend called me and said "Andy, what about the order for Obama to produce his birth certificate?" I explained to my friend that there was no such order. Berg and his supporters were spreading disinformation or allowing it to be disseminated.

I began receiving more calls and e-mails about Berg's lawsuit. Berg was escalating the idiocy of his behavior to attract frustrated voters. "Obama admitted he was born in Kenya," screamed one Berg release. Obama had admitted nothing of the sort. The more irresponsible Berg became, the more e-mail he generated from desperate voters.

Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.

Last month my staff and I discussed whether we should do a column about Berg's harmful behavior. We decided to ignore him and hope he would go away. Mr. Berg is not going away. He keeps manufacturing false claims to stay in the news and to keep soliciting money.

After Berg lost in the district court, he filed an appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals. But there was no "juice" in a mere appeal. Berg was soon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the national election—on the basis of his crackpot lawsuit. Once again Berg was denied relief. And once again Berg was ready with a new round of disinformation.

I started to get e-mails telling me the Supreme Court had ordered Obama to produce a birth certificate. No such order existed. The Rules of the Supreme Court allow thirty days to respond; Berg converted that into an "order" from the Court compelling his opponents to respond. Sheer disinformation. There was no "order."

The false claims about the Supreme Court are what convinced me to reverse my earlier view and write a column questioning Berg's behavior.

Enough, Mr. Berg.

What's next from him? What ridiculous claim will he concoct to continue attracting attention?

During this entire period of idiotic behavior Berg was going on talk radio and soliciting funds for his doomed mission.

What should all of this teach us? I have several thoughts for the reader to consider.

First, no one is more opposed to Barack Obama and his hard left warriors than I am. Obama's minions were not attacking Berg during the campaign; they were attacking me. I was the first one to focus attention on Obama's evasiveness and deception, four years ago. But while I have attacked Obama, I have also worked hard to anchor all of my claims in evidence, interviews and traditional forms of legal research. That's what really scares Obama.

When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.

Second, Berg likes to identify himself as a "supporter" of Hillary Clinton. That's garbage. He's smearing Clinton. Clinton must cringe every time Berg does some new stunt and misuses her name. Berg has no connection with Clinton. More misuse.

Third, is Berg's motive to collect money from frustrated voters? I don't know. He does ask for cash, so that may be the explanation. To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.

Fourth, could Berg be professionally incompetent? Berg has been criticized by judges: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
http://systocracy.com/Bergmalpracticetwo
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05d0521p.pdf

Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior. When an Obama opponent acts crazy, Obama's people say "See."

There are very legitimate questions about Obama's birth certificate and family history. By filing frivolous cases (a case filed in the wrong court seeking the wrong relief against the wrong defendants is frivolous) and misusing legitimate issues, Berg obscures the seriousness of the underlying questions about Obama's past. And, inevitably, journalists link Berg and others (such as myself) together, despite the fact that we have absolutely no connection. I, for one, do not enjoy being joined to Berg in any form, even a news story. http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20193200&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Likewise, Berg's use of Clinton's name benefits Obama by discrediting Clinton as a possible behind-the-scenes Berg supporter, when nothing could be further from the truth. Dirty tricks? Obama and Axelrod are masters of smears by association and deception. Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.

Certainly no competent attorney who regularly practices in federal court would engage in Berg's hijinks. At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.

So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money? (4) is he an incompetent attorney? I can't say for sure which of those apply. I leave it to the good reader's common sense to reflect on Berg's behavior and to decide for him or herself just what Berg's motivation is.

Helping the anti-Obama movement is not Berg's mission. Quite the opposite. Berg has helped Obama by discrediting Obama's opponents. So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,