From Keanu re Sai v Obama et al
UPDATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2010 — Plaintiff files Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint by adding Defendants President Barack Obama and 35 Foreign States that unlawfully maintain Consulates in the Hawaiian Islands who were accredited through Defendant Clinton and the U.S. State Department. Initially, President Obama was removed as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint pursuant Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that provides immunity to Presidents while in office, but because Federal Defendants have not denied, in their pleadings, the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Lili`uokalani assignment, Plaintiff can prove that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be President. Since President Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, he was not born in the United States, and therefore must be considered President de facto and not de jure. As a President de facto, Nixon v. Fitzgerald cannot provide President Obama sovereign immunity because it would only apply to Presidents de jure. To download Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint go to http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under “Court Docket Filings.” I will be periodically updating “Court Docket Filings” as documents are being filed with the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.
OK, this case has now officially jumped the shark. I had some hopes but embracing an “alternate” Birther argument and suing 35 foreign states will bring nothing but ridicule. This will get attetion but not the kind anyone would want.
Very important reasoned move. Keahi
The birther movement will love this. Obama was not born in the US. Maybe the Tea Baggers will throw Obama out of office and free Hawaii.
Defendant acquiesced to plaintiff’s claim by not providing any evidence that would be admissible at trial which refutes or rebuts plaintiff as a third party beneficiary of the Lili’uokalani assignment between the U.S. and Hawaiian Kingdom. It’s only logical that Obama be added as a defendant since he has the duty to execute the executive agreement even as a defacto president. It is not a birther’s arguement but just a fact that is applied to a leagal action. The other 35 defendants probably have no knowledge of Hawaii’s occupation and these executive agreements. Once noticed and given full disclosure they can conduct themselves accordingly. Knowing the terms of a contract and applying the proper law to enforce a breech of that contract for injuries suffered is not ridiculous. Knowing the terms of the contract and continuosly violating it’s terms and getting third party defendants involved is ridiculous.