Comments on: Two American Independent Party Figures Withdraw from One Obama Birth Lawsuit

By: Don Grundmann

Don Grundmann — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:35:12 +0000

The extreme corruption of Mark Seidenberg is illustrated at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com.

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

By: Mark Seidenberg

Mark Seidenberg — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:48:27 +0000

Warning! Don Grundmann is only a member of the
State Central Committee. He has not been an officer of AIP since 2 September 2008. He was removed by former Chairman Ed Noonan as an area director in 2008.

The AIP has been an affliate of the America’s Independent Party since June 27, 2008. The Constitution Party is past history. Don Grundmann
has never been a Vice-Chairman of the AIP.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party and Executive Committeeman, America’s Independent Party (national affliate of
AIP).

By: Don Grundmann

Don Grundmann — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:44:47 +0000

Richard – Thank you. I hope this note finds you well. Best to you,

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

By: Mark Seidenberg

Mark Seidenberg — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:58:01 +0000

Bill,

Thank you for sharing you views on Dr. Grundmann. I agree with you on Dr. Grundmann.

I note one of problems is your membership with the
Constitution Party. According automatically dual-enrollement into the Constitution Party happens upon joining the NVC. It follows you can enroll in NVC and still be have a CP membership without the embarassment of direct affiliation. Ask Larry
if that is possible.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.

By: Don Grundmann

Don Grundmann — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:45:59 +0000

Richard – Comment #35 above is Mark Seidenberg writing as Bill Lussenheide. Is there any avenue available for dealing with fake commentary?

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:13:06 +0000

Comnress knows, as should you, that the Hawaiian Certificate that Obama has is an absolutely valid legal document, perfectly acceptable as proof of birth and citizenship for a passport, driver’s license ir Social Security. They also know, as should you, that Hawaii went to fully electronic records in 2001, as did most states. The electronic record is the official one.

I recently applied for my daughter’s BC from her birth state (not HI). They took the electronic record and used that to issue the B.C. Her document has EXACTLY the same information as Obama’s. Obama’s b.c. says PLACE OF BIRTH-Honolulu; that means the electronic record says he was born in Honolulu. Now you want them to release an electronic database? How do they do that without releasing confidential information on 10s of 1,000s of other Hawaiians? And even if they could find a way to do that, the electronic record would say the same as the paper, because it is the source the paper was generated from.

Why is that so hard to understand? If you print out this post, it will read the same on paper as on the computer, because the paper was generated from the computer.

A final point-whatever documents Congress depended upon is immaterial. They certified the election and Obama is President and can only be removed, according to the Constitution, by impeachment. No judge can alter that and none will attempt to, because that would be judicial activism of the most egregious type.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:33:10 +0000

1) I have read the Constituion. 2) Congress spoke without the original birth record being released. I’m just saying release it already. It’s sounding more and more of the time many years ago when the White House said Watergate was just “a third rate brake-in.”

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:36:44 +0000

Michael: If you read the Constitution, the role of determining whether the candidate with the most Electoral College votes is qualified rests with Congress, not judges. Moreover, Congress is required to make that decision not whenever they feel like it, but at a specified time, namely when the Electoral College votes are counted in January. They decided, without objection that Barack Obama was indeed qualified. Under the Constitution there is no appeal of that decision.

This isn’t just me saying this; several judges in these silly birther lawsuits have in fact said they have no power to rule because this matter is in the domain pf Congress and Congress has already spoken.

You could produce certified film of Barack Obama being born in Nairobi, Honolulu or Times Square in front of 30,000 spectators and that wouldn;t change a thing, because the matter has been decided until 2012. Then you can do it all over again.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:22:39 +0000

Jeffery, no, I am not in favor of judges making up their own law as they go along. Nor can a judge rule who is president. He or she can rule however who is qualified to be president according to the Constitution. I say just release the original already.

By: Don Grundmann

Don Grundmann — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:27:05 +0000

Jeffrey – If you want to learn something and even perhaps, gasp!!, actually ” think ” ( I know that this may be a foreign concept for you ) then you are welcome to learn of the corruption of Mark Seidenberg, as a lieutenant of Alan Keyes, at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com. Best to you,

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party