Items posted to this page are in
chronological order.
The Issue
The issue that the court must settkle is whether a person governed
by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be
considered a "natural born" citizen of the United States as required by
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution.
The
question remains unanswered in any United States court.
Most of
the cases that worked their way through various state and federal courts
concerned whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii.
At his web
site, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certification of Live Birth from
Hawaii and had it verified by a private website called "FactCheck.org."
This was his response to all parties requesting proof he was
actually born in Hawaii. The audacity of this stunt generated a rush of
litigation to have Obama's credentials verified. Of course, while there
is no Constitutional requirement for a birth certificate to be tendered,
ordinary people could not understand why Obama was fighting so hard to
prevent anyone from seeing his genuine documents apparently on file in
Hawaii.
It was this attitude of defiance which stimulated
citizens across the nation -- who are required to present an original
birth certificate to any number of Government agencies -- to institute
litigation challenging Obama's eligibility.
Obama is the first
President in our national history who -- at the time of his birth -- was
openly subject to and governed by the laws of another nation. The
issue which needs to be heard in court is whether such a person's
citizenship will be considered "natural born" for the rest of our
nation's history.
Allowing this issue to avoid judicial
interpretation will forever raise questions to President Obama's title
to office, and it will set a precedent that two generations of
citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become
President and Commander in Chief.
The
Video
The BIG Question -- Obama, what are you hiding?
Phil Berg comments on his lawsuit (10:52)
This video is old now and there's a little self-congratulatory commercial
at the beginning, but this video is important to view for the state of
these lawsuits in the last few months of 2008..
The Lawsuit
On August 21st, 2008, Philip J. Berg, Esq. filed a
federal lawsuit (.pdf) in federal court (Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No.
08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that
Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United
States.
Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Obama were served
with a complaint and summons. The DNC was served at noon and Obama
was served at 1:00 p.m. All Defendants have now been served so the
case can proceed.
In his lawsuit, Berg stated that Senator Obama:
1. Is not a natural-born citizen; and/or
2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or
3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and
Indonesia.
Berg said: "I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious
problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues
after Obama is nominated."
Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former
candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former
Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of
Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery
County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA.
Obama stonewalls and refuses to prove he's a
natural-born citizen!
On September 10th, 2008, Phil J. Berg, Esq.,
filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery that requests court to make
Obama and others provide evidence regarding whether or not Obama is a
natural-born citizen of the U. S.
Yesterday, in response, Obama
filed a Motion to Dismiss:
DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK
OBAMA'S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack
Obama respectfully move the Court for an order dismissing the Complaint
on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
the claim asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying
this Motion is a Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss and a proposed
Order.
The Motion has not been Granted by the Court (at this time).
Faced with the lawsuit, the Obama camp had 2 options:
1. Produce the required documentation establishing and proving
that Obama is a "natural born" citizen, and that his citizenship was
never relinquished and/or was re-established after he had moved with his
mother to Indonesia. Doing so would put this issue to rest in
Pennsylvania, plus all of the other states and jurisdictions where this
is being monitored; or ...
2. File motions, obfuscate, advance obscure legal theories, push
for dismissal, etc.
If the facts were on your side, which would you do?
Update: (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/29/08) Philip
J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama
challenging Senator Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as
President of the United States, announced today that he filed his
Opposition and Brief to Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC]
Joint Motion to Dismiss in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg feels confident that he has "Standing" and the Court will allow the
case to go forward.
Documents
As Phil Berg continues to press
his
case in federal court, one really has to wonder why Obama just won't
produce his birth certificate? No, not the fraudulent "Certification
of Live Birth" that the Obama Campaign released to the Daily Kos, that
looks like this:
click for larger image
Berg, acting as a proxy for all of those who want to see a real,
honest-to-God "Birth Certificate" issued by the State of Hawaii.
They look like this:
click for larger image
Instead of just laying one of these on the Clerk of Courts desk, Obama
sends a team of lawyers to get the case dismissed or delayed it
until the election is over.
What's up with that? What is he hiding and why is he hiding it?
Birth Announcement
One of the key documents that that the Obots point to as evidence
that he was born in Honolulu is the "birth announcement."
The question here becomes, how did this notice, supposedly from
August 13,1961, get in the paper? It could have been phoned in
from anywhere, by anybody, at any time.
Obama
Seeks
Dismissal
Democratic National Committee steps in to silence
Obama birth certificate lawsuit. Democrat suing his own party
says it's "like they're in cahoots."
The man suing Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of
Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party -- rather
than just providing the birth certificate he seeks -- would step in to
silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.
Prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Phil J. Berg
filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago
claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not
eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama
publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of
citizenship, he'll drop the suit.
Berg said that the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it
go away -- instead of just providing the documents -- the more convinced
he is that his accusations are correct.
"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her
closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has
ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.
"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and
on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just
come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down
the case."
Berg said, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk
to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware
of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire
election."
When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case
dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there,
immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."
"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg
explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main
reason for doing this.
"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides
that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and
correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our
system by law," Berg said.
Ask yourself, why doesn't Obama just make his
birth certificate public and end this thing? What could he
possibly be hiding?
Obama
Hires
CAIR's
Lawyer
The lawsuit, filed by Philip Berg in federal court has taken a
bizarre and disturbing twist. Rather than just producing a birth
certificate proving his eligibility for the office of
POTUS, Obama has filed a motion to dismiss.
Of the 1,143,358 resident and active
attorneys in the United States, Obama selected
Joe Sandler, of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young to
represent him in this filing.
Sandler's role for CAIR has been to intimidate people who dare to expose
the goals and actions of Islamofascists. For example, last year he
tried to get Jihad expert Robert Spencer banned from speaking to the
Young American Foundation by using a threatening letter. Sandler
followed up by threatening columnist Mike Adams for writing about the
Spencer incident.
The question is, why would a guy who wants to assume the role of
Commander-in-Chief select a lawyer with terrorist connections to
represent him in a law suit?
This is just another of those "guilt by associations" that Obama
dismisses as a "distraction" and the mainstream media chooses to ignore.
Is there anybody around Obama that doesn't hate this country?
Berg
Amends
Phil J. Berg filed an amended complaint today in
Berg v. Obama. The amended complaint adds the
Pennsylvania Department of State, the Secretary of the Commonwealth
Pedro A. Cortes (in his official capacity), the U. S. Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration, and Senator Diane Feinstein (in her
official capacity as chairman) for their failure to exercise due
diligence with respect to Barack Obama's constitutional
qualifications to be elected and serve as President of The United
States, and for his inclusion on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a
candidate for President of the United States.
The amended complaint also bolsters the standing argument and adds
additional relevant facts.
Essentially, the argument is this:
• Senator Obama could put this whole
issue to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate.
• Senator Obama has chosen not to do
so.
• The defendants (other than Obama)
have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral system
by properly vetting the qualifications of candidates, which they have
failed to perform.
• Mr. Berg, other Americans, and our
system of government are damaged by this failure.
• Senator Obama, who has collected
$425,000,000 in campaign contributions, has perpetrated a fraud.
Following are some of the factual
statements made in the amended complaint (The complete complaint is
at link).
Berg is "Outraged" that Obama & DNC Hide Again Behind Legal Issues as
their attorney files a Motion for
Protective Order to "not" Answer Admissions & Production of
Documents while Betraying Public in not Producing Documents proving
Obama is "qualified" to be a candidate for President.
The Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/06/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the
Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator
Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United
States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee
[DNC] filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on
09/24/08.
While legal, Berg stated he is "outraged as this is another attempt to
hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not
exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The case is
Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by
attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not
resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the
qualifications to be President.
Why won't Obama produce a birth certificate
and end this?
More
Motions
Another intervening motion was filed on Oct. 15th, in the ongoing
federal suit against Barack Obama. This motion, filed pro se by
"U.S. Citizen and voter" Judson Witham of Provo, Utah, is the third such
motion for leave to intervene filed in this case. As I mentioned
when the others were filed, I feel as though we should continue to focus
our attention on the case-in-chief.
Counting this and the other two intervening motions, there are now nine
pending motions in the Berg v. Obama
action. The others include Berg's motion for expedited discovery,
Obama and the DNC's motion to dismiss, Berg's opposition to the motion
to dismiss, Berg's motion for leave to file amended complaint, Obama and
the DNC's motion for protective order, and Berg's response to the motion
for protective order.
Just a reminder -- despite the perceived delay, the Hon. R. Barclay
Surrick is well within his discretion here, and may very likely hand
down an order (possibly addressing all pending pleadings) this week.
Or he may not. (4:15)
Averting a Crisis in Confidence; Citizen files Lawsuit Against
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack
Obama’s citizenship status.
Seattle WA. 10/9/2008 -- Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City WA
today filed suit in Washington State Superior Court against Secretary of
State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship
status.
The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington
Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a
"natural born" citizen by producing original or certified verifiable
official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification
should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional
crisis and likely civil unrest should such certification, after the
election, prove that Mr. Obama was not qualified for office.
The Complaint argues that the Secretary of State has the authority and
duty to not only certify the voters but also and most importantly the
candidates and in so doing prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of
voters who would had had an opportunity to choose from qualified
candidates had the certification preceded the election process.
At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access
to his birth records nor supporting hospital records. The Hawaii
Health Department has violated Federal law by ignored formal Freedom of
Information requests for the same. Do to the facts and numerous
other allegations that would challenge Mr. Obama’s fundamental
qualifications for office, a Federal lawsuit was filed and is currently
being heard in District Court, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Obama failed to respond to the District Court’s request to produce
or allow access to the official documents (should they exist) and
instead filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff had no
"standing" or right to know. This non-response as of 9/24/2008 in
Federal court casts doubt on the veracity of the electoral system and is
the principal reason for this lawsuit. The late entry of this suit
is due in principal part to Mr. Obama’s delay and subsequent non
response to reasonable request for valid certificates. Multiple
requests for early certification to the Office of the Secretary of State
has been rejected.
The Washington Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with
certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and
overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the
fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this
regard, Secretary of State Sam Reed has not carried out that fundamental
duty.
This lawsuit demands injunctive relief directing Sam Reed, Secretary of
State, carry out the duty of his office in this regard answering the
formal complaints for verification of Mr. Obama and any other candidate
appearing on the ballots issues through his office for which formal
complaints have been received.
And,
Another
One
...and another lawsuit
Andy Martin filed suit in the First Circuit Court in Honolulu today
seeking a court order to open Barack Obama's secret birth records.
The lawsuit is against the State of Hawaii asking the state to open
Obama's birth records. The Governor and Director of the Department of
Health are named as defendants.
"The case has been docketed as number 08-1-2147-10 and assigned to
Circuit Judge Bert Ayabe.
Martin says the basic question remains: why is Obama trying to hide his
life from birth to adulthood from the American people?
According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party
upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within
30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically
deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.
On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the
Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to
serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip
Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just
such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and
the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed
in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal
Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served
within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done
so.
Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be
suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit
his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two
motions in district court in Philadelphia:
A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for
admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted
by default, and
A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion
deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC
admitted.
Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within
the time limit is "damning."
Still, for Berg, the issue is clear. He simply wanted answers or
objections, he said, and instead received nothing. Rule 36,
according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other
side," Berg said. "The admissions are there. By not filing
the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything.
He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in
Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a
phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to
serve as president of the United States."
And,
Another
A Warren County man is taking the long-simmering dispute over Barack
Obama’s birthplace -- Hawaii or Kenya? -- to court.
David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township plunked down a $200 fee to file a
lawsuit Friday in Warren Common Pleas Court in Lebanon.
The suit seeks to force state and federal officials to take more steps
to settle, once and for all, the question of Obama’s legitimacy as a
potential president.
The U.S. Constitution requires presidents to be natural-born citizens
who are at least 35 years old. "Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate
that he is a ‘natural-born’ citizen," Neal declares.
He asserts that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, the Democratic
National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and U.S. Sen. Diane
Feinstein all ought to be held responsible for verifying that Obama
meets the constitutional requirements for president.
Lawsuits in nine states (Utah, Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida,
Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut), are now seeking
judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Senator
Barack Obama’s qualification to run as a candidate for President as a
natural born U.S. Citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to
force the certifying documents from Obama.
Berg Suit
Dismissed
Lawsuit against Obama
dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court.
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday.
Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's
constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States
had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the
Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.
Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence
provided by Berg to support his allegations.
Obama citizenship question goes to U.S. Supreme Court
The former deputy Pennsylvania attorney general who
challenged Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's
qualifications to be president has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lafayette Hill, Pa.-based attorney Philip Berg, a self-described
"moderate to liberal" Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign, alleged that the Illinois senator is not a U.S.
citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency.
His lawsuit was dismissed Friday by U.S. District Judge Richard Barclay
Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Crisis!
We have a looming constitutional crisis, like it or not,
potentially as great as that of the
Election of 1860.
The judge did not say Obama is eligible or ineligible. He said
eligibility is not relevant, under the law, at this point.
Surrick’s dismissal specifically applies to conditions prior to the
election and is procedural in nature.
It says nothing of the very different legal conditions that apply after
the election, should Obama win. Technically, Surrick is correct
when he rules
you can't sue for an injury that hasn't happened.
Obama can't be sued unless he wins the election. Of course, he
won't lose another suit because, after the election, he would have the
power of millions and millions and millions of voters who would take to
the streets to defend their choice -- and some of those people love
confrontation.
The
Supremes
Supreme Court Justice David
Souter’s Clerk
informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against
Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th
election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to
respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of
four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Obama must present to the
Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.
If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the
Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to
decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his
natural-born citizenship.
"I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if
Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate," says Raymond S. Kraft,
an attorney and writer. "They cannot do otherwise without abandoning
all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal
justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves
guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power
-- even over presidents, even over presidents-elect."
Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts
its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is ineligible to
become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound
to honor the Constitution.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and
supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ORDER
On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired
attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of
the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and
Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey
from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of
the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as
enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this
action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain
and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the
removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for
the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail
on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come
directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New
Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing
to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.
While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't
rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core
Constitutional dilemma. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born
in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not
eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split
jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
Sabotage
Atlas Shrugged
spoke to Mr. Bickell (the New Jersey lawsuit) a few minutes ago,
asking him what happened to my letter informing me of the first
disposition back on Monday November 3rd, when he decided not to pass the
Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That
wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice."
Incredible! He disposed of my case illegally and then said that
since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice
thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means".
This is truly unprecedented, my friends.
Mr. Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an
Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on
the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still
need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the
other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay
Application arrives.
Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that
these people are just citizens, I don't know who they are, and I can't
command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme
Court's actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case,
and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the
procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not
been followed.
I don't think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it
certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So I'm asking
people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice
Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court
instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful
and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US
Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE
THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the
URL to this
blog
Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, vice-presidential candidate Wiley S.
Drake, and the Chairman of the American Independent Party, Markham
Robinson, have
filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento seeking to bar
Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying to Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger the names of Electors, and from transmitting to each
presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until documentary proof
is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a "natural born"
citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of
Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain.
In addition, they have asked that the court issue a peremptory writ
barring Senator Obama’s California Electors from signing the Certificate
of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified.
In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Ambassador
Keyes commented, "I and others are concerned that this issue be properly
investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office.
Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his
tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue
can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under
no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation."
here
is the .pdf file of Ambassador Alan Keyes, et al, lawsuit in California.
More
Sabotage
Atlas Shrugs
spoke to Mr. Bickell (the New Jersey lawsuit) a few minutes ago,
asking him what happened to my letter informing me of the first
disposition back on Monday November 3rd, when he decided not to pass the
Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That
wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice."
Incredible! He disposed of my case illegally and then said that
since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice
thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage.
This is truly unprecedented, my friends.
Mr. Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an
Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on
the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still
need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the
other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay
Application arrives.
Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that
these people are just citizens, I don't know who they are, and I can't
command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme
Court's actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case,
and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the
procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not
been followed.
I don't think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it
certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So I'm asking
people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice
Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court
instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful
and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US
Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE
THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the
URL to this
blog
By Judah Benjamin, Guest Author
FOREWORD by TexasDarlin
Judah Benjamin, an historian and former journalist, has written a
two-part series challenging the Constitutionality of Barack Obama’s
eligibility to be President. It is exhaustively researched, and
lengthy compared to most blog entries. However, I have left his
story in tact with only minor edits because of its importance.
Although Judah Benjamin addresses the possibility that Obama was born in
foreign territory, the article’s central thesis rests on the assumption
that Obama was born in the United States.
Here is my 2-sentence bottom-line summation:
Barack Obama has been a citizen of multiple nations. And even if
his citizenship outside the US was renounced, Article II of the U.S.
Constitution prohibits him from being President, for the same reason
that naturalized citizens are prohibited: divided loyalties.
The article must be read in its entirety to be fully understood and
appreciated. It will be presented in two parts. PART ONE is
the author’s legal reasoning. PART TWO is the factual basis for
the author’s conclusion that Obama has held dual citizenship and is
therefore ineligible to be POTUS.
[Please see the Author's End Note about his qualifications and request
for professional review.]
Phil Berg's Pennsylvania lawsuit is
still before the Supremes.
The questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been
thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the
injury to a voter is "vague," but some Judges do actually realize the
question may be beyond their jurisdiction and 'ask for help' by clearly
making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on.
The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only
under specific circumstances.
The questions presented for review are:
1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to
challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee
under the "natural born citizen clause" [Article II of the U.S.
Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would
result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a
United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President
of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential
Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United
States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to
ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to
serve as President of the United States?
The "questions presented for review" in the writ require Obama’
response. Notice that answering these questions does not require
Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does
not have to prove himself eligible.
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal
motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that
the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have
standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3)
that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications,
and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure
a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing
technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove
himself.
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the
14th Amendment says that "naturalized citizens" and "dual citizens" are
"American citizens", thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II.
Aloha!
Muckraker Andy Martin's, lawsuit
went before the judge
today in Hawaii.
The defendants in this case are Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii,
and Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii State Department of
Health .
The statement of claim:
1. Plaintiff requested a certified copy of the birth certificate of
Senator Obama from the Department of Health and tendered the requisite
fee.
2. Defendants refused to provide a copy of said certificate, invoking
the confidentiality statutes of the State.
3. The issue of the Senator’s birth certificate has become a
controversial topic of intense national speculation.
4. As an author who strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct
thorough research Plaintiff wants a copy of the Senator’s birth
certificate attested to by the State and not a "certificate" which is
posted on a web site and which has been debunked as possibly having been
altered.
5. One of the more literate and temperate analyses of the unlawfulness
of the Defendants’ refusal to issue certified copies of the birth
certificate is contained in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
6. To the extent that the Defendants’ files contain or retain original
supporting data for the birth certificate, Plaintiff asks that he also
be supplied with that information and/or material as well.
7. It is axiomatic that the birth certificate of a presidential
candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance.
8. While Hawai’i statutes call for a balancing or weighing test where
production is considered by a court, most respectfully Plaintiff submits
that the balance falls entirely on the side of disclosure where the
original birth certificate of a presidential candidate is concerned.
Here's an update of the hearing from Martin:
"We had about a half-hour hearing. 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."
Emergency
Stay
Requested
Here's the latest in the New Jersey
lawsuit.
On Friday Nov. 14, 2008, Leo C. Donofrio sent, by US Postal Express
Mail, a letter, as required by
Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Clerk of the United States Supreme
Court -- William K. Suter -- requesting his
Emergency Stay Application as to the national election by renewed to
the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by right of law,
specifically
Supreme Court Rule 22.4.
According to
Supreme Court Rule 22.1, the Clerk is demanded to "transmit it
promptly" to the Justice it is addressed to. Please recall that on Nov.
3rd, Donofrio originally submitted this same emergency stay application
to the US Supreme Court. Despite the stay, the Clerk -- Mr. Danny
Bickell -- made assurance that the application would be given to the
Honorable Associate Justice David Souter that night, it was not
transmitted promptly. In fact, it wasnot transmitted at all
after Mr. Bickell, having made an illegal and improper substantive
judgment of law, thereby denied the application on his own volition.
The emergency stay application was eventually submitted to the Honorable
Associate Justice David Souter, four days late, on November 6,
after Mr. Bickell was forced to concede that his denial had been
improper.
The emergency stay application, having been brought to the US Supreme
Court from a denial of the New Jersey Supreme Court, was required by
Supreme Court
Rule 22.3 to be submitted to Justice Souter as he is the Justice
assigned to the Third Circuit which includes New Jersey. The
application was denied by Justice Souter on Nov. 6, and such denial
therefore triggered the
legal right,
under Rule 22.4 to renew the emergency stay application to "any
other Justice." The application to renew has now been sent to the
Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
Hopefully, this time, the emergency stay application will be
promptly transmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence
Thomas.
The renewed application was delivered to the US Supreme Court Clerk's
office at exactly
7:46 AM by US Postal Express Mail. (Click link for US Postal proof
of delivery.)
Update: Donofrio's case is
now on the docket for Justice Clarence Thomas.
An
Independent
Opinion
An attorney who practices in
the state and federal courts in Missouri sent me the following via
email:
By Obama's website admitting on Factcheck.org that he was a Kenyan
citizen at birth, he in fact made an ADMISSION which is admissible in
court to being a foreigner at birth. (Federal Rules of
Evidence 801(d)(2): An Admission is an out-of-court statement made by a
party to a case that is admissible unless the statement is irrelevant or
violates another rule of evidence.)
His statement on his website is relevant to the issue of his citizenry
at birth and it will not violate another rule of evidence in the federal
court, especially the U. S. Supreme Court.
The person who is bringing this issue to the U. S. Supreme Court is Leo
Donofrio, New Jersey Attorney. Here is a link to his
blog. On
November 17, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. he renewed his emergency stay application
to Justice Clarence Thomas. He will likely grant it because
Justice Thomas is a strict constructionist of the Constitution.
Along with Berg v. Obama et al which Justice Souter granted the writ of
certiorari, these two cases along with the other 14 or so cases
effectively put Obama and the DNC in a corner. Under Article III
of the U. S. Constitution, the Supreme Court will have to hear the case
because it is a federal question and a true case and controversy like
what was heard in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
The Founding Fathers of the U. S. Constitution were clear as to the
intent of the natural born citizen clause for a Commander in Chief or
President of the U.S. I will be writing an article on a blog which
highlights this point but here is a preview of it:
What is fascinating is that the origins of the
natural-born
citizen clause can be
traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington,
presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay
wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government; and to
declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army
shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
There was no debate before members of the Constitutional Convention of
1787 and the natural-born citizen qualification for the office of the
Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then
adopted.
The counselor added this piece of wisdom in a
later message:
A good friend of mine stated to me a couple of days ago that usually
the Courts are the best defense against wrong. The main reason for
this is that it allows REASON and LOGIC to prevail (application of law
to facts of a case/controversy after both sides have had a fair
opportunity to present their sides). The Judge is required to be
impartial and fair in its decision. That is one reason why the
Civil Rights cases of the 1930's through the 1960's were so successful
at the Supreme Court level. It went through various legal
challenges at various levels, but at the end it worked out for the
good/betterment of the country regardless if you agree with them.
Patience is a virtue. The pieces are coming together.
One case will not be the final death knell, but an ACCUMULATIVE effect
will expose those who have done a classic coup d’état. All
of the cases against Obama and the DNC in some form or fashion are
important because it allows STRONG EVIDENCE of fraudulent intent by
Obama, the Obama Campaign, and the DNC and that is going to be needed to
persuade the masses of cult like people who followed Obama
unconditionally without questioning him to make sure he was valid.
Just like the Nuremburg trials against the Nazis, evidence is the key.
Eventually good will prevail over those who have done evil and
wrongdoing. But, we have to put the pieces of the puzzle together
to let it be so.
British
Nationality
Act
Remember, this from Obama's
website,
"Fight the Smears"
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a
British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As
a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose
citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children."
"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn
an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically
expired on Aug. 4,1982."
The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to
the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of
this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by
descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at
the time of the birth.
It's On!
The game's afoot, Watson!
On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes,
the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to
review Obama's citizenship status.
Leo Donofrio's case, "Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary
of State of the State of New Jersey, United States Supreme Court
Docket No.
08A407," regarding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level.
The case has been "distributed for conference."
This docketing today by the court should send ripples of fear through
the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lightening speed to
put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the
hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was
"at birth" a "natural born citizen."
Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC,
have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore
losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest
at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place
on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full review, oral
argument may be ordered. The conference is scheduled for December 5,
2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College…
The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack
Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots,
and for a stay of the "national election" pending Supreme Court review
of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as
natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
of the Constitution of the United States.
Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ
Supreme Court -- was denied -- and then he filed an emergency stay
application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before
the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter
denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.
Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to
the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail
on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov.
17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.
On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine
Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008. It is not known at
this time the exact details of how the case came to be "DISTRIBUTED for
Conference".
Background on "The Justices Conference" is discussed as follows by the
Supreme Court Historical Society:
"No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior
Associate Justice acts as "doorkeeper," sending for reference material,
for instance, and receiving it at the door...
Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are
summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the
long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit
at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…
The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The
senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line.
To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the
majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for
the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each
Justice has a set several weeks before argument.
Wrotnowski
Sues
The Connecticut lawsuit, filed by Cort Wrotnowski,
and challenging Obama's eligibility for POTUS has reached the US Supreme
Court. On November 25th, 2008, Wrotnowski's application (08A469)
for stay and/or injunction was submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Wrotnowski's case has been docketed, despite having initially been
denied process by the SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell. That's
the same Bickell who attempted to sabotage Leo Donofrios' lawsuit.
Mr. Bickell needs to be brought up on criminal charges for obstruction
of justice.
Wrotnowski has been through two lower courts and is now using the US
Supreme Court rules to properly petition the court for relief.
Update: Now, here's a suprise! Justice Ginsburg, the
ex-chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, has
denied Wrotnowski's
application. Wrotnowski had to submit to Ginsberg, who is the
Justice for the 2nd District, which includes Connecticut. The
denial was anticipated.
Some regard
Wrotnowski's application for stay as an improvement upon Donofrio's.
It can now be resubmitted to a justice of choice, perhaps Scalia or another one for Thomas?
NYS Supreme Court Kings County Index no.: 29641-08 - article 78
challenging individual NY electors and state office actions by OSC with
decision reserved for before December 15, 2008 which may require
removals and vacancies to be filled in the NY Electoral College.
NYS Supreme Court Kings County Index no.: 29642-08 - challenging NYS SOS
et al breach of due diligence of Obama's eligibility and 42 USC 1983 /.
1985 state action civil rights violation in re obama's eligibility
malfeasance and sedition. As proposed OSC for TRO was declined in re
expedited discovery in re US DOS travel records with a reference by the
State Justice that the request at state level is collaterally estopped
because it is now before the federal courts with my intent to go to the
SCOTUS.
EDNY 08-cv-4289 (dismissed with prejudice) regarding state action
election violation and 5 USC 552 request of US DOS, now seeking to
either find money to file appeal matter in re FOIA for Obama's mother's
travel records from 1960 through 1963 from US DOS that are in statutory
violation.
2nd Circuit 08-5422-OP original proceeding for writ of mandamus seeking
a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum of US DOS records requested under FOIA
and remand to EDNY 08-cv-4289 (denied) 11/14/08 now on direct appeal
under SCOTUS Rule 22 for application of extraordinary writ to be
submitted this evening to Justice Ginsberg who should have it Monday.
In addition, on October 17th New York citizen Christopher Strunk filed a
Freedom of Information Request with the US Department of State seeking
the foreign travel records of Mr. Obama’s mother. Thus far, the Dept. of
State has not responded to the request. On November 10th, Strunk filed a
Writ of Mandamus in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
seeking an order directing the State Department to release the travel
records. On November 14th the Writ was denied, without comment.
Strunk filed a motion for certiorari and at the U.S. Supreme Court on
November 24th, under rules 22 and 23.
The
Allegations
No more bamboozling, hoodwinking, and doing the okie dokie
Army Ranger.com reports that Justice David Souter has agreed that a
review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack
Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of
standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the
details.
Note: This is the second case that has
made it to SCOTUS. Phil Berg (PA) is Docket No.
08-570 and Leo
Donofrio (NJ) is Docket No.
08A407.
Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keys also has a case in the
California Superior Court and Chicago muckraker Andy Martin has one
going in Hawaii Superior Court. There's approximately another
dozen making their way through the courts in other states. Each
case makes different arguments, but all are challenging Obama's
eligibility.
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes
abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the
Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but
rather is a matter of judicial discretion based upon a compelling
reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement
that "No person except a natural born citizen…"
(Section 1 of
Article II of the
Constitution).
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008, Obama must respond
to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged
primarily on the question of Obama’s place of birth, it is almost
inconceivable that Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the
Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy
his original birth certificate.
In all of these cases, the inevitable constitutional crisis regarding
president-elect Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or
unwillingness) to produce an authentic, vault copy of his Hawaiian birth
certificate, complete with signatures and with the raised certificate
stamp, that can be used verify Obama's eligibility or ineligibility for
the office.
Note: If my grandson had to present a
birth certificate to prove his eligibility to play Pop Warner football,
it is not unreasonable that Obama present his to prove his eligibility
for the role of Commander-in-Chief.
Here are some, but not all of the unanswered issues hanging over the
head of Obama and the question of his eligibility:
• The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to
automatically grant him American citizenship
(after all, Grandma Sarah continues to claim she was in the delivery
room);
• The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as an
adopted child of an Indonesian citizen, and that he retained foreign
citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to
regain his American citizenship (a foreign
adoption will do that to your children -- be careful who you marry
ladies);
• The allegation that Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and that
he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen
(comprehensive and irrefutable evidence of this
counterfeit document will be on this page within the next few days);
• The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any
hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not
now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships
with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are
true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president
(Obama admits on his own website that he was a
Kenyan citizen at birth --
this
AUDIO is just in -- the Kenyan Ambassador to
the United States says that "it is already well known" that Obama was
born in Kenya (start listening at 12:00
minutes into audio) );
• The allegations that Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half
brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya. Reports
reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she
was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late
stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid
births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama
in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth
(Hawaii's laws allows an amended birth
certificate be filed by the parents of children born in a foreign
country, so Obama could have been born anywhere and still have an
amended Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii.);
• The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals,
since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the
public (not to mention that there are reports
naming two different hospitals where Obama was born.);
Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii,
however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided
that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents
expatriate. Since Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen,
who adopted her son, and moved the family to Indonesia, the suit
claims she forfeited both her and Barack’s American citizenship.
And, let's hope that Justice Souter read the
riot act to
his clerk, Danny
Bickell, who has tried his best to sabotage these lawsuits.
A Grisham
Novel
Yesterday, Nov. 21 2008, Leo Donofrio's previous
blog was
hacked, as was the entire blogtext.org network by means or forces
unknown.
He has relocated to
Blogger.com. Mirror sites containing the exact content have
been set up. Everybody is hereby authorized by Donofrio to mirror
the contents of his blog.
LanLamphere.com will
also have a mirror site up shortly. Lan, who mentioned that the
FBI is providing protection for Donofrio, also has in depth radio
interviews with him. The podcast is available at link.
Today, November 22, 2008, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the New Jersey
Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official
allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack
M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which
was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division.
The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme
Court is now before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS),
"DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008" before all nine Supreme
Court Justices.
He is very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests
the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a
fraudulent case file -- not including all relevant documents -- will be
forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be
jeopardized, as he speculated that there was a chance that the US
Supreme Court might ask the Appellate Division what records they have.
Donofrio forwarded official allegations of obstruction of
justice against Supreme Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Judge
Jack M. Sabatino. In the Appellate Division he is alleging
that Judge Sabatino purposely tried, through improper ex parte
communications, through his law clerk, to instruct him how to file an
improper lawsuit.
New Jersey judges are appointed by the governor. In this case, Jon
S. Corzine, who worked Obama's campaign. He is formally of Goldman
Sachs and is involved with the carbon credit exchanged that was funded
by a Joyce Foundation grant. Obama was on the board of the Joyce
Foundation, as was his buddy, the communist and terrorist, Bill Ayers.
Misconduct
This past week, Leo C. Donofrio (the
New Jersey case) forwarded to the Honorable Chief Justice John G.
Roberts an official allegation of misconduct against Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
stay clerk, Danny Bickell.
United States Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, is now
"Distributed for Conference of Dec. 5th, 2008" to the full Court meeting
in private on that date. The case was the subject of previous
sabotage by SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell (as well as judicial
misconduct by NJ Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino (see
11/22/08)). Bickell, after receiving the emergency stay
application which requested extraordinary relief to stay the national
election, took it upon himself to deny the application on the very time
sensitive date it was filed, Nov. 3, a day before the election day
popular vote.
In 1861, Circuit Justice Swayne Defined Natural Born Citizen
"All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born
subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States
are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.
Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this
country, as well [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions,
and only two, to the universality of its application. The children
of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the
ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property,
and not persons. An alien naturalized is 'to all intents and
purposes a natural born subject.' Co. Litt. 129.
'Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the
patent.'"
Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues.
They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President.
Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject
to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s
birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth," just like
the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to
produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil,
he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also
British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they
were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural
born Citizens." Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be
eligible to the Office of President;"
That's it right there, and remember that Obama
was born a Kenyan
citizen, making him a "subject of the Queen." Obama, by birth, has
"divided loyalties."
A lawyer who is playing a key role in a California
lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state's 55 Electoral College
votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his
citizenship are resolved says he's organizing plans to challenge, even
after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of
paperwork generated by Obama.
"We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we
have money, we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to
his citizenship status," Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice
Foundation,
said.
"We're already talking to groups who are willing to be plaintiffs," he
said.
US v.
Wong Kim Ark
The Law -- US v. Wong Kim Ark
This attorney also believes there is a U.S. Supreme Court case that is on point
regarding the "natural born citizen" clause meaning in Article II,
Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
It is
US v.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898).
Look at the highlighted portions on page 654 through 656
and page 662 through 663 (note: the document begins
on page 650). These are the relevant portions.
This is the case the US Supreme Court will likely refer to in
defining the natural born citizen clause and applying it to the
candidates of the 2008 presidential election.
Just a brief summary regarding law that
is controlling authority and one that is persuasive authority.
The highest level of federal legal authority is cases from
the U.S. Supreme Court. Next in line are cases from the
Circuit Court of Appeals (1st, 3rd, 8th, etc...). Then you have the
Federal Courts (district courts). In terms of federal law,
the highest level of authority is the US Constitution.
Next is federal statute made by Congress. Then everything else.
This case was provided so the reader
will be informed. Donofrio is right and the Supreme Court will
likely follow this case.
This article points out that John A. Bingham, the Framer of the 14th
Amendment, defined natural born citizen as follows: "every human being
born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your
Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." Obama, whose father
was a British subject, had dual nationalities at birth, and thus would
not be considered a natural born citizen. The definition above is
only Bingham's opinion, but it is certainly on point. There is not
a clear definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution, so the
issue is "ripe" for consideration by the Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS). It would not be surprising if four of the
justices vote to give Donofrio's case a full hearing.
Here is an updated
case that gives examples of the citizenship classification. The
case is Perkins v.
ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). It expands and refers on the
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality (below).
But the key is this case gives examples of what a citizen of
the US is and what a native-born citizen (or natural born citizen)
of the US is. Attached is the case with highlights.
Here is a chart of
the facts and the Supreme Court's holding in the case. The Supreme
Court will have to consider Obama ineligible to be President based
on the two cases. The problem for Obama is that
his father
was a foreigner (Kenyan Citizen) and Obama will never be
considered natural born (or native born) of this country.
Facts
Supreme Court
Holding
Citizenship
Matrix
Miss Elg was
born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents,
who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States
sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here
in that year. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327
(1939).
Elg is a
citizen of the United States. Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).
1 foreigner
parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US
statute)
AND
Born in
Brooklyn, NY (USA)
The facts
were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth,
emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in
1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in
St. Louis. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).
'Young
Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330
(1939).
2 US Citizen
parents (at least one naturalized by US statute)
AND
Born in St.
Louis, MO (USA)
There's now
absolute proof that Obama and his Chicago political Mafia has
been plotting this circumvention of the US Constitution, for
which he has such disdain. The Obama camp has been studying
ways to change the Constitutional requirements for President for
some time now.
Remember, Obama
taught courses in constitutional law at the University of
Chicago as a "senior lecturer." He KNOWS, and the DNC
KNOWS, that Obama does not meet the standards of Section 1 of
Article II of the US Constitution.
The Democratic Party is engaged in nothing short of a
coup d'état,
defined as the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a
government by a part of the state establishment.
Natural
Born
Citizen
Since the first 10 Amendments were codified in 1791, the
US has made additions or clarifications to the Constitution, via
Amendment, 17 times. Changing Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, to
read "foreign born" or "dual citizen" has not been one of them.
Amendments proposing to end the Constitutional requirement of "Natural
Born Citizen" have been introduced in Congress subcommittee 26 times
since the 1870s, only to have died in subcommittee 26 times.
In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll (11/19/2004 through 11/21/2004), 31%
favored an amendment to change the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement.
67% of those polled opposed it.
TexasDarlin
blog has an important essay by
Judah Benjamin that explores the "natural born citizen" clause of
Article II and concentrates on the admitted fact that Barack Obama was
born with dual citizenship.
Lawsuits
Abound
Can't Tell The Players Without A Program
The fourth law suit, challenging Obama's citizenship and Natural Born
status has reached the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Click links at state abbreviation for details.
1. Phil Berg (PA) -- An answer from
Barack Obama is due at SCOTUS by December 1st. Berg claims that
Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified, natural-born citizen and is
ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States."
2. Leo Donofrio (NJ)
-- The case is scheduled for conference by all 9 SCOTUS judges on
December 5th. Donofrios' suit is against Nina Wells, the New
Jersey Secretary of State, claiming that she had not performed her duty
to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
3. Chris Strunk (NY)
-- Filed with SCOTUS last week. Strunk had filed a Freedom of
Information Request to the Department of State seeking information
regarding Barack Obama’s mother’s foreign travel records as well as a
stay of the Electoral College voting until such time as this paperwork
is provided to the Electors.
4. Cort Wrotnowski (CT)
-- Filed his second case with SCOTUS yesterday. Wrotnowski claims
Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz should not have
placed Obama’s name on the ballot without verifying his eligibility for
POTUS.
Fomenting
Constitutional
Crisis
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and
holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr.
Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many
problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were
discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a
flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that?
What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God
knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think
about it."
"If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if
there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other
side wanted him to produce the thing and he said 'no,' I would tell him,
'you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to
produce the document, or I'm resigning as your attorney," said Mr.
Vieira. "I don't think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the
basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil
litigation [and refused to do so]."
Read
this Constitutional lawyer discusses the ramifications of this
controversy.
Obama to
Supremes
"Take a
Dudley!"
Obama and the Democratic National Convention (DNC) have let a December
1st deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip
J. Berg's petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a
legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office.
Berg filed his petition on October 30th, and according to procedure, a
response from the defendants was due today. But when contacted,
U.S. Supreme Court and the Solicitor General's Office officials
referenced the FEC's waiver and dodged any questions about Obama and the
DNC filing separate responses.
Berg will file a motion in the Court today in an attempt to further
prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the
United States.
Jeff Schreiber has been following Berg's case from the beginning and
writes that the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two
main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to
prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each
individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting
votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of
any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of
Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any
decision on his appeal.
Berg was quoted saying, "As I've said over and over and over again,
we're headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely
imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is
qualified under the United States Constitution to be president."
Berg said, "It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief,"
he said, "that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he
should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn
in this January unless he shows his credentials ... which he of course
cannot, simply because he does not have them."
The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to
respond to Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however,
are allowed two more days for mail service).
While Berg recognizes that Obama and the DNC were not obligated to file
an answer, he believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in
procedure and more in audacity, stating that he "doesn't expect them to
respond" and that his opponents will likely "take a more cavalier
approach that we lack standing."
Denied!
Just in -- Cort Wrotnowski's (CT)
case was denied late Wednesday, 11/26, by Justice Ginsburg (now
there's a surprise). It was resubmitted to Justice
Scalia on Monday, 12/1, and then was sent for anthrax testing. Leo Donofrio (NJ)
is fighting mad about the delay caused by this detour and is asking for demonstrations in front of the Supreme
Court building.
Donofrio's case will be discussed by the Justices on Friday, 12/5, and says
Obama is not eligible because he is not natural-born. Wrotnowski's
case is similar, except Donofrio says it is even better written and
stronger than his own. Donofrio believes the two must be heard
together.
Update: Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day
after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his
renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due
to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed
application to the Security booth at SCOTUS Tuesday morning, 12/2, at 10:30 AM.
Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would "probably" be
in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM. Cort’s application, according to
Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be "transmitted promptly" to the
Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Keep your eyes on that
Docket to
see if they will follow the Rules of Court.
If Barack Obama is allowed to assume the office of president without
positively establishing his eligibility under the Constitution, it will
set a precedent for exempting the allocation of executive power from
constitutional restrictions on the pretext that majority support
overrules constitutional authority, popularity supersedes the
fundamental law. Obviously, this is a recipe for the establishment
of democratic dictatorship, like that which characterized the
revolutionary first republic in France and licensed its murderous
excesses. It is the counterpart of the "democratic people's
republics" in whose name countless millions were imprisoned and killed
by oppressive party dictatorships in the Soviet Union, Communist China,
North Korea, etc.
In an era when the insecurity implied by the threat of terrorist attack
already overshadows our liberties, only one thing may be more dangerous
to our freedom than such a precedent -- the fact that it comes about
because of the ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition of those sworn to
uphold the Constitution. If they lack the character to do so now,
before abuses of executive power create an environment of physical fear
and intimidation, what must we expect once those abuses produce their
inevitable effect? The people mesmerized by his tinsel rhetoric
may expect Obama to resist the temptations of demagogic tyranny, but if
he assumes office knowing that in doing so he has already successfully
set aside the Constitution, no reasonable person could agree with them.
As Shakespeare wrote, "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill."
("Macbeth," Act 3, Scene 2)
The "Investigating Obama" blog does a wonderful job
explaining Leo Donofrio's "Natural Born Citizen" challenge,
currently before the United States Supreme Court, for the layman
The Donofrio case is not about Obama's birth certificate, contrary to
reports in the media.
This suit was received by Justice Thomas and by the determination of the
entire court, it is scheduled for conference today, Friday, December
5th. This conference is held to decide what, if any, further steps
should be taken. Only two of these steps would be to either
intervene in the process of selecting the president, or to hear oral
arguments.
Other cases against Obama's candidacy have been rejected by various
courts, due to a private citizen's apparent lack of standing to sue a
candidate. However, this case is an action against the Secretary
of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent for a state case,
regarding a presidential election, to be brought to the Supreme Court
for emergency action.
This is a great read, clear and concise, and I encourage all to
visit and get the real background on today's anticipated events.
SCOTUS
Vigil
Joe
Thunder, LA radio personality, reports that Big Media is on scene at
SCOTUS, ABC, NBC, Washington Times, et al. There are about
50 people there now. Prayer happened. Media is interviewing
everyone.
It's perfect. No signs, well behaved, etc. Let's hope it
holds. Media is calling us as well.
A radio station in New York City wants to talk to me about Leo.
Then Florida called. Then Georgia called. Then Pennsylvania
called. Then Chicago, Dallas, Des Moines, and Denver called.
Now I have 3 more waiting me on in the next hour -- Ed Hale,
plainsradio.com.
A Kenyan
Citizen
NaturalBornCitizen writes that at Barack Obama’s web site contains the following admission
and a link to
FactCheck.org,
that clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
'When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a
British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As
a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose
citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…' "
Read that last line again.
"That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…"
That’s an admission that Great Britain "governed the status" of Barack
Obama, Jr., and Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United
States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the
United States.
A Word From
Sam Adams
The condition of the founding fathers’
spirit and intention for America was eloquently stated by Samuel
Adams:
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them
against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance
from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and
danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us
with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of
infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should
suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or
to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
The United State Supreme Court remained
silent after a "Rule of Four" conference hearing Friday regarding
the Donofrio v. Wells lawsuit challenging the "natural born" citizen
status of President-Elect Barack Obama.
The application was first "referred to the full Court by Justice
Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took
place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the
application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008."
Leo Donofrio, the plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells said.
On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30pm, some of the licensed attorneys
who initiated lawsuits challenging President-Elect Obama's legal
eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will
stage a press conference at the National Press Club to briefly summarize
the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases.
Prior to the press conference the SCOTUS is expected to announce whether
it will consider each or all of the lawsuits and the motions from each
to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a
determination of the question of Mr. Obama's "natural born" citizenship
status.
Robert Schulz, of the We the People Foundation, who published an open
letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week
requesting Mr. Obama to release his vaulted, original birth certificate
now under seal by the State of Hawaii, said, "Should the state members
of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of
such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's
eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution."
Although there's no guarantee the Court will ever actually issue any
statement on Donofrio v. Wells, since it was simply petitioned to the
court, it's would be unlikely the court won't hear the case.
I wouldn't get too excited about that last
statement. There's no shortage of opinions about these goings on
and you know what they say about opinions.
What might the phrase "natural-born citizen"
of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase
has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative
source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the
phrase recognizes.
Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of
Independence, and following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating
the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving
a case.
The Supreme Court has
turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says
President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he
was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo
Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential
election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at
birth -- his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a
British subject -- he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one
of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be
president.
The irony -- Donofrio's suit at SCOTUS wasn't news
-- SCOTUS turns down Donofrio's suit -- it's in every media outlet in
the country.
Update: Donofrio said the main stream media should stop saying
SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference
on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days.
Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral
argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues.
The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were
considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such
consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good
reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop
their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their
minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to
record that.]
My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state
why.
Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an
emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that
application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous
lower Court procedural history.
After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor
referred it to the full Court.
It's Not Over
I barely know where to begin. OK,
Big news for Tuesday, 12/9/08 and Friday 12/12/08. Leo Donfrio's
case was denied today, BUT Cort Wrotnowski's case was
distributed for conference by all nine SCOTUS Justices this coming
Friday morning. Leo's legal arguments were a large bases portion
of Cort's. Leo strengthened the arguments in Cort's case, AND both
Leo and Cort are heading to the SCOTUS Tuesday to file a supplemental
brief further strengthening Cort's case. They will answer
questions from the media at the SCOTUS steps at 11:00AM.
This is far from over. Leo is fired up. Let the media
know that Leo and Cort will be there at 11:00 AM Tuesday.
And it gets even better. I attended the most amazing press
conference anyone could imagine today. The room was packed
overflowing. Philip J. Berg, Esq., Bob Shultz, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq,
and the ever lovable, Pastor James Manning, just SPANKED a room full of
press with four big professional video cameras running. Wow!
It was hard not to cheer, and Pastor Manning got an ovation, even in
there.
A partial listing and status
update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility
to serve as president is below:
Philip J. Berg, a
Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's
original birth certificate and other documents proving his American
citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its
motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.
Leo Donofrio of New
Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship
disqualified him from serving as president. His case was
considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full
hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's
secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His
case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was
denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan
Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a
case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the
secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral
College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until
Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is
pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii
Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record.
The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to
stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack
Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's
citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M.
Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from
the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee,
the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential
candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In
Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking
a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to
authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an
injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by
Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California
attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is
not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the
Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved.
Berg's Back
A lawyer who already has two conferences pending before the U.S. Supreme
Court on the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has
filed a new lawsuit, this one on behalf of a retired military
colonel who would need to know whether to follow any orders issued by
Obama as commander-in-chief.
Philip Berg's earlier case and a
request for an injunction in the case are scheduled for conferences with
the justices on Jan. 9 and Jan. 16.
The new case, filed with
co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, was submitted to U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C., and names as defendant "Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama."
It demands to know Obama's real name and his constitutional
qualifications to occupy the Oval Office. The plaintiff is Gregory S.
Hollister, a resident of Colorado Springs, who has "standing" and "needs
a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any order of Soetoro
a/k/a Obama."
Berg reported the case is in the nature of an
interpleader, shifting the burden of proof to Obama and Joe Biden.
"I am determined, on behalf of the 320 million citizens in the
United States, to see that our U.S. Constitution is followed. Specifically, in the case of Soetoro
a/k/a Obama, does he meet the constitutional qualifications for
president?"
Standing
A
new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and,
therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the
potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases'
dismissal: the issue of "standing."
In the case brought by
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled
against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue,
arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff
specific, personal injury.
In Washington state's Broe v. Reed
case, however, plaintiff's attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, says a unique
state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.
"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of
state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify
Obama's eligibility],'" said Stephen Pidgeon, "and the secretaries of
state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to
prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the
courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.
"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued.
"This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge
the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election
was ineligible to hold office."
Further, Pidgeon explained, "In
Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says
the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a
state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S.
Constitution.
"He doesn't think he does; we think he does.
That's really the issue before the court," Pidgeon said.
Bogus POTUS
An
unscientific poll being conducted by America Online reveals more and
more people are having second thoughts about Barack Obama's eligibility
to occupy the Oval Office.
Those who raised questions about his
vague history before the election largely drew scorn from the mainstream
media, which cited an online image from Obama's campaign that
purportedly proved his U.S. citizenship with a Hawaiian "Certification
of Live Birth."
But the latest results from the America Online
poll reveal that nationwide only 41 percent of the participants now
believe there is no issue to be investigated.
Fifty-three percent
nationwide, and majorities in 45 states individually, say "yes" when
asked if there is "any merit" to the controversy surrounding his
citizenship. Even in Obama's own state, Illinois, the opinion is
split 47-47 percent on the issue.
Nearly 20 lawsuits that have
been filed in various courts around the nation, including several that
have reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
They all in various ways
allege Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President."
(1) Does he state
publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby
"perjure" himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be
eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress
or any court of law, it would be actual perjury.
(2) Will he
produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell
the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and
thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his
life-long ambition to be President of the United States?
or (3)
Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to
release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of
those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that
he is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President? I
submit that Obama has made the third choice.
The consequences
for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the
choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth
certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at
least
two reasons
for this.
One More Time
A conference is
scheduled Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court during which justices
will consider behind closed doors -- again -- taking up a case that
could put to rest the questions about whether Obama is eligible to
occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that he be a
"natural born citizen."
Twice before the justices have heard the
questions, and twice before they've decided not to act.
The
lingering questions continue to leave a cloud over the impending
presidency of a man whose relatives have reported he was born in Kenya
and who has decided, for whatever reason, not to release a bona fide
copy of his original birth certificate in its complete form.
Lawful Orders
Add
one more lawsuit against Obama challenging his eligibility to hold
the Office of the Presidency.
Philip Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce
are representing Retired Military Colonel Gregory S. Hollister in a new
lawsuit filed against Barack H. Obama. This January case is very different
factually in that the Plaintiff is a person who could be called upon to
take orders from a President Obama. The Plaintiff NEEDS to know
"whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama."
Justice Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear the
Lightfoot v Bowen case, challenging eligibility for presidency of
Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full
conference of the Supreme Court.
The timing of this decision by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely
remarkable.
On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by
Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote
of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United
States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them:
Hold
on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue
338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain
Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification
of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any
corroborating evidence. You need to investigate. You need
corroborating evidence.
A
legal challenge that alleges Barack Obama isn't a "natural born"
citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the
United States will follow the Democrat into the Oval Office, with a U.S.
Supreme Court conference on the dispute set after the Jan. 20
inauguration.
The court's website today announced that a fourth
case on the issue will be reviewed by justices Jan. 23.
The
court previously heard two cases in conference -- private meetings at
which justices consider which cases to accept -- and denied both Cort
Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio full hearings.
The court now has a
conference scheduled Friday on a case raised by attorney Philip Berg,
with another conference on a matter related to the same Berg case on
Jan. 16. Then today the court website revealed the case Gail
Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, will be
heard in conference Jan. 23.
Barack Is Definitely A Brit
Commenting on the release of the Obama's
divorce papers, a lawyer practicing in Missouri writes,
"That is why
lawyers practice law and lay people don't. They call it
a specialized skill for a reason because you have to be trained in
the law to understand the legal significance of the document. There
is some crucial information that is important that I have discovered
so far, but it is not a smoking gun as you were waiting for, but
leads to more clues:"
1.
Obama Sr. is Obama II's (aka Barry Soetoro's) father and this document is evidence to
provide that.
It is important
because, in the absence of a real birth certificate, it
VALIDATES Leo Donofrio's and Cort Wrotnowski's legal theory
regarding the fact that Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro) is the
son of Obama Sr. On page 2, IV., it states the
following: That one child has been has been born to said
Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage to wit: Barack
Hussein Obama, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.
This divorce decree is significant because it proves that
Obama Sr. is the legitimate father of Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro).
It can be submitted in court as evidence. If Obama Sr. is the
legitimate father of Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro), then
Obama II
was a British subject at birth under the British Nationality Act of
1948 because Obama Sr. was a Kenyan National. Therefore,
Obama II can't be a natural born
citizen of the U.S. with this dual citizenship.
2. Pages 8 through 11 are missing, If
a child is involved, a typical divorce decree states out provisions
for child custody & child support. An attorney, practicing
in Missouri, bets that it is on the pages
that are missing, and is doing some research to find out what the
standard forms in Hawaii for divorce decree with children looks like.
3. The names used
(Stanley Ann D. Obama) are important because they will allow people to research the
manual records of the birth certificate of Obama II.
What can be
confirmed is thatBarack Hussein Obama, Sr. is, in fact, Barack
Hussein Obama II's biological father.Please
see this PDF,
paragraph IV, which reads the following:
That one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as
issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son,
born August 4, 1961.
Of course, this does not
say where the
presumed President-elect was born. Also, for those who are not
familiar with the legaleze, "issue" is the legal term for a child or
children (can be inherently construed as singular or plural).
Therefore, what has been
confirmed by FactCheck.org
has now officially been confirmed by these divorce papers.
Granted, this is not exactly breaking news, but it puts legal
backing behind the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II's birth was
governed by the UK colonial laws of Kenya in 1961 regardless of where Barack Husssein Obama II
was geographically born. In
fact, even if Barack Hussein Obama II was born on American soil in
Hawaii, his nationality status would
have still been governed by Britain!
So, to bring this full circle. We now know --- via Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines'
forensic work -- that the
FactCheck.org and related site's
Certificationof
Live Birth (COLB) is on record as being officially debunked
(opposing expert opinions are invited from those willing to
substantiate that the
Certification of
Live Birth, as posted on the Internet, is enough to substantiate
Barack Hussein Obama II's natural born citizenship). Further,
you'll note from this comment
that Dr. Polarik further explains how even the pictured
certification's certificate
number is questionable. And today, we now know that UK
colonial citizenship had officially been linked to Barack Hussein
Obama II via his father, meaning that, officially, Barack Hussein
Obama II is an American citizen of
some sort, but not a natural born citizen.
Investigating Obama goes on to summarize Stephen Pidgeon's
commentary (attorney for 13 Plaintiffs in Broe
v. Reed):
Then, he explains how Hawaii COLB's are not birth certificates
of the kind which are required for fundamental identification.
Then, he explains how it is admitted knowledge that Stanley
Ann's second husband, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack, whose name
was changed to Barry Soetoro and who was registered in an
Indonesian elementary school as an Indonesian citizen.
After this, the discussion gets into the question of whether
Barack Obama might be guilty of criminal fraud, if he were born
in another nation. ?Now, Pidgeon explains how becoming an
Indonesian citizen voids the status of natural born
Citizen, requiring naturalization, if one is to then become an
American citizen, again. And now, the discussion goes to this
peculiar, new working assumption of Ed Hale has that there is an
immigrant's birth certificate for Obama II on file in America.
We're also in for a big
week the week of January 4th, 2009, when both Berg
v. Obama and Broe
v. Reed have big days in
court (I'll be posting a summary of that action for next week).
As this Missourian counselor has said before, it is going to
take EVIDENCE so that the fraud that has occurred can be exposed for
what it is, not just legal theory.
Colonel Hollister
Many cases are pending that are asking the same question as Philip Berg.
The question however simple now has a life of its own and it is now
obvious it will not die easily. It is whether Barack Obama is in
fact constitutionally eligible to assume the office of President.
More than ten cases are pending throughout the country and new ones are
planned until the matter is put to rest.
The latest
challenge comes from Gregory S. Hollister a retired U. S. Air Force
Colonel that like any military retiree could be called back to service
at any time. It seems the Colonel is questioning whether Obama has
the constitutional right to act as his Commander in Chief if he hasn’t
the right to seek and assume the office of President. Can Obama
act as his commander if he is actually the citizen of a foreign country?
One Lawyer's Opinion
The SCOTUS disposition of Berg v.
Obama: "The motion of Bill Anderson for
leave to file a brief as amicus curiae
is granted. The petition for a
writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." You may read by
link a
report
and a
commentary
about this by blogger, law student, and close follower of this case,
Jeff Schreiber. The commentary presents considered opinions,
but not the only rational opinions.
I was reading the first couple of pages and one
thing written in the amicus brief should show you that the issues
are REAL and people should not get discouraged. On page 2 and
3 are the telling paragraphs
1. This Court is not facing a question of the
constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the
prudential considerations only; and
2.The lack of
an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, and
the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom,
that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the
law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of
standing; and,
3. With respect to the prudential
considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are
analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Okay, looking at these 3 provisions, the
Supreme Court granted the brief
and denied the stay because there is a bigger problem. This
issue (e.g. granting writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama) will not
only affect Obama, but it will likely impact Biden (Vice
President Elect) as well since he was involved and current Speaker
of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and any other person who is the
successor in line to be President because they have knowledge of the
fraud and complied with it (e.g. current democratic leadership).
The people supporting Obama know the U.S. has a problem and that is
why coup de'tat are so effective, but what is critical is that THE
MILITARY KNOWS AND ARE ON GUARD NOT TO FOLLOW ANY ORDERS FROM AN
INELIGIBLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
That is why the Supreme Court is being extra
cautious here in which they should because there is a possibility of
another American civil war. The investigations on all levels are
going to impact a whole bunch of people who will need to be removed
from serving in a federal capacity. This will likely be an Al
Capone feat in bringing this down once all of this goes through.
FYI, res ipsa loquitur means "the
thing speaks for itself." It is a term used in tort law and an
example of it is chairs don't fly out of 5 story buildings by
themselves, they have to be thrown out by a person or natural
act (e.g. hurricane, storm).
Berg Denied
Nearly a week before his inauguration, Obama
likely has one less burden on his shoulders, as the United States
Supreme Court
denied certiorari today in the first lawsuit which called into
question his constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the
United States.
A motion filed by a third party seeking permission
to file an
amicus curiae -- "friend of the court" -- brief was granted,
but with certiorari denied in Berg's case, it is unclear whether
granting the amicus curiae motion is anything more than a formality, and
whether the conference scheduled for Friday, January 16 in order to
weigh an underlying injunction filed by Berg is necessary at this point.
That the denial of certiorari was made "before judgment" is merely an
acknowledgment that Berg's case is technically still active at the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, but changes nothing.
Philip Berg's
lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee, filed on
August 21, 2008, questioned Obama's eligibility to serve under Article
II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution -- that requires in part
that the president be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States --
and was previously dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from
District Court in Philadelphia. While the Supreme Court's denial
of Berg's petition for certiorari today was not accompanied by
explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least six
Justices agreed with Surrick's determination that Berg lacked
standing to sue.
"Of course, I cannot help but be
disappointed because the Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate
protectors of our Constitution, and in this case they really let us
down," Berg said. "They let America down. They let all of us
down. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against this
country. Forget politics for a minute and just think of the
Constitution -- next week, we'll be swearing in a president without even
knowing for sure whether or not he's qualified constitutionally to serve
in that office. There are so many unanswered questions about
Barack Obama and, today, the Court just told us that we're not even
permitted to ask."
Now,
there's two big questions -- What's Obama hiding and who's got standing?
Check Mate?
To:
Drew68
My eighty-nine year old father practiced law for
over 50 years. He was top in his class and clerked for the federal
court. When the Gore case went to the SCOTUS he wrote the chapter,
paragraph etc. that the court would decide the case on a piece of paper.
He also wrote the vote tally and which justices would vote which
way.....He gave the paper to a young judge in town and told him to open
it when the decision was published........He was 100% correct. He
thinks any one who thinks that the SCOTUS is going to ignore or dismiss
this case is delusional. He is much more qualified to judge the
case then you are.
The Supreme Court had to wait until now for
Berg to have standing. There is no precedence for this case.
It is a historical decision and they will do everything they can to get
it right. The constitution does not establish who vets the
candidate. Part of their decision will determine who, or
what will be held responsible in the future, if not now. It could
destroy the Democratic Party if they are proved to be part of an
intentional fraud. If Obama does not provide the documentation
they request, he will be held in contempt, and they WILL obtain it.
Here's
another view of this chess game. It explains how the SCOTUS
has Obama in Check Mate.
Both Donofrio's and
Wrotnowski’s cases said the burden lays with the Secretary of State (SoS)
not doing their job. There is no law that states that it is their
job. So, the SoS would win the case. In Conference, they probably
talked about who was responsible to vet the candidate. If
it wasn’t the SoS of each state, they did not want to waste valuable
court time and not hold Obama accountable. The burden to each SoS
to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time
and expense. You will notice that neither cases were completely
released but pending. They can be revisited and opinions may be
written on them when a final release is given. Berg’s case, on the
other hand, places the burden on the candidate, the party, and the FEC.
Berg, however, did not have standing until Congress certified the
electoral votes to present his case. He now has standing,
as do Keyes and the other California cases.
Writer
unknown . . .
College Records Subpoenaed
Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes
continues his legal battle to discover whether President-elect
Barack Obama is eligible to serve as America's 44th president. On
January 15, 2009, lawyers for Alan Keyes subpoenaed Obama's Occidental
College records for use in the case of Keyes v. Bowen. These
records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national.
For a PDF download of Dr. Keyes petition, click
here. For a PDF of the Occidental College subpoena, click
here.
College officials confirmed they had gotten the notice,
but had not decided how to respond, a decision that may be removed from
their hands because of the team of high-paid lawyers Obama has
engaged to prevent such inquiries into his past.
"Good
cause exists for this production under
Subpoena Duces Tecum,
in that testimony will be elicited from the original records obtained
through the witness named herein, and there is no other process
available to secure said testimony."
Meanwhile, in this new
interview (video),
Alan Keyes, who ran for president in 2008, questions why Barack Obama
has spent upwards of $1 million to conceal the original copy of his
birth certificate and explains what happens to the rule of law if and
when we, as a nation, fail to uphold the Constitution.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
The Shame Of The Justice System
Here is a partial
listing and status update for several of the cases:
Philip J.
Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's
original birth certificate and other documents proving his American
citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the
Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed
a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from
serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S.
Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit
against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to
Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme
Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate
Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a
case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the
secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College
votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies
his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending,
and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin
sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release
Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed
by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought
a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in
North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed,
alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to
force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal
Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio
Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born
in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven
Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's
citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked
the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His
request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was
denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs.
Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S.
later was dismissed.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle,
dismissed.
American justice to the American People -- Screw You!
48
There are
currently 48 federal lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to
serve as President of the the United States. Just how much is
Obama paying to defend his ineligibility?
In Dr. Orly's, "Keyes v
Bowen" case, there are 4 attorneys representing Obama, 4 representing
California Secretary of State
Bowen, and one
representing the Electors. That's nine lawyers. There are
two issues here:
1. Obama is spending a fortune. His
California attorneys are from a Beverly Hills firm (unless it's just a
front) and in Washington, DC, Robert Bauer, named as one of the "100
Most Influential Attorneys," has been around the block time and again.
Dr. Orly estimates that Obama's attorneys are charging $600 an
hour. You do the math.
2. The States are spending a
fortune. They are wasting our taxpayer's dollars to defend the
indefensible.
Obama could
end all of this with a $20 bill. I can't imagine what is or isn't
in his vault-copy birth certificate that would justify Obama's ongoing
battle to prevent its release.
Occam's Razor
Was it so out of the question for Obama just to show
his Certification of Live Birth [COLB] to the court, but instead his
lawyers chose to show the judge a hyper-text link to it. Does
Obama and his lawyers have any confidence to show a 10 buck piece of
paper to the court? What are they afraid of?
Think Occam's
Razor.
You cannot show what doesn't exist. There is no, genuine COLB
for Obama that matches what was posted online, and there never was one.
His original, long-form BC shows something else, and that is the reason
why NO BIRTH DOCUMENT has ever been shown to the courts or the public,
whether it's the COLB transcript or the "vault" certificate.
Obama would sooner commit hari-kari than release the original birth
certificate. He would have 32 root canals without anesthesia
before he would show his original birth certificate. Obama will
use every means at his disposal to prevent his BC from being released.
He would shred it before it would ever be submitted to the courts in
response to a court order.
Whatever is on that original birth
certificate would destroy the Obama mystique and mythology. The
original birth certificate cannot be forged and pass inspection as
genuine.
If the original BC is released to the public, it would
destroy the Obama mythology, and it is the same mythology that got him
elected.
So, people need to stop asking why he won't spend 12
dollars for a copy. The truth should be obvious: unless you put a
political gun to his head, Obama will continue to stonewall. If
the information shown on his original BC matches what appeared on the
bogus one posted online back in June 12, then we would have seen a real
COLB. We haven't. It's been eight months since that single,
bogus image was posted, and despite Obots claiming that Obama would show
his original BC to make "tin-foil hat conspiracists" look stupid, there
was no "July Surprise," "August Surprise," "September Surprise,"
"October Surprise," "November Surprise," "December Surprise," "January
Surprise," and with one day left in the month, no "February Surprise"
either.
The only "surprise" Obama has pulled was a really stupid
one where his lawyer cites Factcheck as "evidence" of Obama's NBC
status.
"Why is Obama hiding his BC?" and "Why won't Obama spend
$12 to get a copy of his BC?" should be seen as rhetorical questions.
Taitz Meets Scalia
Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Keyes v. Obama as well
as the now-defunct case Lightfoot v. Bowen, had a chance to speak
briefly with Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia while he had
been in California for a book signing event.
I got to this
meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic,
just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only
four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions
and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an
attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts
distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now I represent 9 State reps
and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know
if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original
Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the
records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.
I have
to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los
Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold,
however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks, I actually could see
a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely.
I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the
answer.
Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get 4
people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument.
I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these 4 that call
themselves Constitutionalists, went to the other side. He did not
say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the
legislature to decide. For example, right after me another
attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce
and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the
legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that
quo warranto is antiquated or not appropriate, no, just get 4.
Right after that he went into the issue of the 17th amendment. He
stated that today the Congress and the Senate are not accountable to the
states and can do whatever they please. He stated, that when the
rules of the game were changed in 1913, when the senators were no longer
chosen by the state legislature, but rather elected, therefore they are
not accountable to the states, cannot be recalled by the state and that
is why there is such an overreaching power by the federal government.
I stood at the end of the line and let everyone else go ahead of
me. I figured while he is signing two books, me being the last and
he is not rushed, he might have a minute to ask another question.
So, after another hour on my feet (after I stood for a couple of hours
at the presentation), I gave him the books to sign and asked, "Tell me
what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for
asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate".
He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.
I asked, tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not
heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio- he had a bewildered look
on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t
know, I don’t remember. Scalia seems to be one of the most decent
judges on this court. I think he was telling the truth.
Could it be that the cases, were handled by those nefarious clerks,
those "mahers," that work for who knows who and the judges are clueless?
I don’t know.
At the end I gave him my 164 page dossier, that
I’ve sent to Holder about all the suspected criminal activity,
intimidation harrassment, cyber crime surrounding me and officer
Easterling. Scalia seemed to be interested and started reading the
first page, he put it next to him, but then the secret service agent
grabbed it. What could I do at theis point? Wrestle with the
secret service? Clearly that wasn’t the time and the place to show
of my black belt Tae kwon Do skills. I just shut up and left.
There was nothing else I could do at that meeting.
No Ministerial Duty
A California court has
ruled that apparently anyone can run for president on the California
ballot -- whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the
United States.
"Secretary of State Debra Bowen contends that
there is no basis for mandamus relief because the Secretary of State has
no 'ministerial duty' to demand detailed proof of citizenship from
presidential candidates," said
Judge Michael P. Kenny.
"The court finds this
argument persuasive."
Ahh, the old Chico and the Man
defense, "Es not my job, man!"
And! The judge bought it!
His opinion threw out a case
raising questions over Obama's eligibility that had
been brought by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on
behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate, and
others.
The lawsuit explained secretaries of state in California
previously have exercised their election authority and have rejected
candidates who did not qualify.
"As stated in our previous
pleadings herein, former California Secretaries of State have taken
legal action to remove individuals from the ballot for failure to comply
with the eligibility requirements to serve as President of the United
States."
Doesn't matter, sayeth
the judge! Case dismissed!
Kenny dismissed the case, ruling,
""Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the Secretary
of State to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship
from Presidential candidates. Elections Code section 6901 requires
the Secretary of State to provide local elections officials with a
certified list of the names and party affiliations of candidates
nominated by their respective parties to appear on the November 4, 2008
Presidential General Election ballot. Elections Code section 15505
requires the Secretary of State to certify to the Governor the names of
the electors receiving the highest number of votes."
There's
simply no "clear or present ministerial duty" to require eligibility
documentation from presidential candidates.
"Such a duty is not
imposed by of Elections Code section 12172.5 which provides that the
secretary of state 'shall see that state election laws are enforced,'"
he wrote.
The judge also threw out a subpoena issued to
Occidental College to provide copies of Obama's records of attendance
there.
"The court finds
this argument persuasive."
I believe that any argument
would have persuaded this judge?
I Will Read Your Documents
It was a grueling
day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and
drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to
Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in
Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the
audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and
present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and
told Roberts.
"My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from
Southern California. I left home at three o'clock in the morning
and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a
question." Roberts seemed to be impressed by that, and I continued.
"Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the
Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case Lightfoot v
Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices
on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to
forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from
you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was
erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the
inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the
conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be
posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no
knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January
23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a
million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts
demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein
Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States."
At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I
held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily.
It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition
-- there were others that have written individual letters.
Roberts said "I will read your documents, I will
review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will
review them." His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated, "Give
me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them."
I
had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he
found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and
introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned to
the security of Chief Justice Roberts.
Major Premise: To be
POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor
Premise: Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
This
syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be
overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true,
then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that
requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to
be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be
challenged by any law of man.
Therefore, the conclusion of this
syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is
empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.
It’s true that --
technically -- Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to
submit a full petition for writ of certiorari. Many have written to me
and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic. The answer is fairly
simple: my case is moot.
The same is true for Wrotnowski v.
Bysiewicz, Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Berg cases, all of which asked for
emergency stays or emergency injunctions to stop a candidate from
becoming "president-elect" and later president.
Once my case stay
application was denied, I had exhausted the only emergency procedure
available to me and the US Supreme Court Rules would not have
facilitated the resolution of a full petition before the candidate was
sworn in as President (or become president-elect).
When Obama was
sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts, our Constitutional
separation of powers kicked in big time. Because of the separation of
powers enumerated in our Constitution, the United States Supreme Court
has no ability to remove a sitting President. Nowhere in the Document
does it give the Supreme Court (or the judicial branch) any authority to
remove a sitting President.
All of the eligibility law suits --
brought before electoral college votes were counted in Congress -- sought
to challenge the qualifications of candidate Obama to be President. Once
he graduated from "candidate Obama" to "President-elect Obama" and later
"President Obama", every single eligibility law suit pending before
SCOTUS became moot.
Those actions are moot because SCOTUS has no
authority to act on the relief requested in those law suits. And SCOTUS
knows this better than anybody else.
On February 9, 2009, a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Mario Apuzzo,
filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.,
Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand and Donald H. Nelson, Jr.
The lawsuit, Civil Action Number.
1:09 –cv-00253 was filed in
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The defendants in
this case are: Barrack Hussein Obama II, and Individually, a/k/a Barry
Soetoro, United States of America, The United States Congress, The
United States Senate, The United States House of Representatives,
Richard B. Cheney (President of the US Senate, Presiding Officer of
Joint Session of Congress, Vice President of the United States and
Individually), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House and Individually).
All of the defendants have been served with a copy of the complaint
and have 60 days to respond to the complaint. Will they stand up
like honest citizens and answer the complaint, or will they hide behind
high priced lawyers like Obama has been doing?
Basically, the
lawsuit says there is no verifiable proof that Obama is an American
citizen and is therefore ineligible to be the President of the United
States. It also points out that the United States Code of Federal
Regulations was violated by the defendants, during the course of
counting Electoral votes, by not asking any members of Congress if they
objected to the counts. A normal counting of the votes takes
approximately 2 hours. Obama’s took 36 minutes and it is on record that
there was no call for any objections.
This lawsuit is important
because, the cold hard fact of life is that if Obama is not qualified or
eligible to be the President of the United States of America, every
action Obama takes is fraudulent. Any Treaty, Executive Order,
Agreements, and/or Laws signed by him are not valid and can be
rescinded, reneged on or totally ignored by any Nation on Earth,
including future American administrations, now and into the distant
future. Any trade agreements between Nations and Corporations can be
denied or rescinded.
By the very nature of
Obama’s citizenship being questioned, it places the liberty of all
Americans in jeopardy. Obama himself, can end all lawsuits, quiet all
questions, stop all Internet chatter about his citizenship by simply
producing a legitimate Birth Certificate. What reason could he have for
employing legal firms to obstruct anyone from seeing where he was born?
Obama has used three law firms to keep his birth place secret. There is no proof that he was born in America. Obama steadfastly refuses
to provide any proof that he is an American citizen. Most of us have
heard of his "Certification of Live Birth" in Hawaii. Any person born in
any location on Earth can have the State of Hawaii give them a
"Certification of Live Birth." This document has a space on it asking
what country the applicant was born in. Hawaii has two birth documents. A
"Certification" which is given to anyone who asks for it,
regardless of what country they were born in, and a "Certificate," that
is only given to people born in Hawaii.
Obama and the major news
companies in America proudly show an ignorant populace the
"Certification." It proves only that a human being was born somewhere on
this particular Planet.
One of the problems these lawsuits face
is the simple task of getting a Judge to at least consider the facts
presented. Case after case has been thrown out by various Judges,
loosely based on the incredibly profound ruling of, "It’s none of your
business, so shut up."
Tampering?
Dr. Orly Taitz, a California attorney battling on a
number of fronts to obtain documentation of Barack Obama's eligibility
to be president is asking the FBI and U.S. Secret Service to investigate
suspected "tampering" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
She says the
issue of Obama's eligibility to meet the Constitution's demand for a
"natural born" president has been before the Supreme Court at least four
times.
But she wonders whether the justices actually were given
the pleadings to review.
"I believe … that there was tampering
with documents and records by employees of the Supreme Court and the
justices never saw those briefs," she alleges in a letter to the FBI's
Robert Mueller, the Secret Service's Mark Sullivan and Attorney General
Eric Holder.
Taitz raises questions about "forgery of court
records, tampering with court records, cyber crime, erasing of court
records from the docket, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and other related
crimes."
Specifically, she points to the handling of her own
case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on an
emergency basis. Although it was scheduled for a conference, no
hearing ever was held.
Yesterday, Dr. Orly
Taitz was in Washington DC with WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah. Among
their tasks in DC was visits to the Department of Justice and to the
Supreme Court. It has been learned, proven, and now
documented that many
of the signed receipt documents sent in since December have not been
received.
WND
reports that the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice
Department today confirmed that documentation challenging Barack Obama's
eligibility to be president has arrived and soon will be evaluated.
Confirmation came from DefendOurFreedoms.us, the foundation through
which California attorney Orly Taitz has been working on a number of
cases that raise questions over Obama's birth, and therefore his
qualifications to be president under the Constitution's demand that the
office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen.
According
to the blog, Taitz was informed by Karen Thornton of the Department of
Justice that all of the case documents and filings have arrived and have
been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, including
three dossiers and the Quo Warranto case.
"Coincidently, after
Dr. Taitz called me with that update, she received another call from
Officer Giaccino at the Supreme Court," the posting said. "Officer Giaccino stated both pleadings have been received and being analyzed
now."
The report from the Supreme Court also said the documents
that Taitz hand-delivered to Chief Justice John Roberts at his
appearance at the University of Idaho a little over a week ago also were
at the Supreme Court.
Keyes v. Bowen & Obama Motion To Quash Subpoena Granted
The Court
granted the request after determining that:
(1) technically,
Keyes did not comply with the rules for serving subpoenas; (2) practically, Keyes’ request was overbroad; (3) in
the court’s opinion, the lawsuit is is moot, meaning the issue (as the
court sees it) as been decided.
Obama occupies the Oval Office
and Occidental records won’t change that. Now, whether the
Occidental records would provide grounds for unwinding the election is
another story, but the court, it clearly seems, doesn’t want to go
there.
Keyes filed in California state court, so he’ll have to
take this, and any other issues, through the state appellate courts.
If, after reaching the California supreme court, he still isn’t
satisfied, he can petition SCOTUS for review.
Federal Criminal Complaint Contends Obama Ineligible
A 1975 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis has
raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Obama's eligibility to be
president,
filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S.
attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Retired
U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign
for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are
criminal activities within the military, accused the president of
"treason."
In his complaint
addressed to Obama via U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant U.S.
Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee, Fitzpatrick
wrote: "I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by
military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty
years.
"Now you have broken in and entered the White House by
force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit.
Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped
civilian command and control over the military establishment."
"I
identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy."
Citizen Grand Jury Indicts Obama
Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging
he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal
complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen
grand jury in Georgia has
indicted the sitting president.
The
indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one
of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be
president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be
"natural born" citizens.
Orly Taitz, a California attorney
working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed
another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told
WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.
The Quo Warranto
claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has
assumed the power of the presidency.
Over the weekend the jurors
took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then
generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney,
the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the
state.
Georgia resident Carl Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand
jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of
British common law on which U.S. law is based.
He said the
members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of
procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations
about Obama, saying that remains confidential at this point because
of the possibility of a prosecution.
However, the website
explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.
"If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after
being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to
the remainder of the grand jury," it says. "The grand jury may distrain
and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by
taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until
amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand
jury."
Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S.
attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and
leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.
Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned
Leo D'onofrio has received letters from the people who ran the
citizens grand jury in Georgia, and while
he appreciates their frustration
in that our Government has failed to protect the Constitution by
allowing a President to be sworn in who is not a "natural born citizen",
he does not agree that this citizens grand jury has any legal authority
whatsoever to demand the removal of a sitting President or to even force
the review of his qualifications.
The separation of powers in the
Constitution has delegated that power to Congress who in turn enacted
the District of Columbia Code provision for Quo Warranto. Sections
16-3501, 16-3502, and 16-3503 are the only Constitutional means
available to see the President removed or to even have him face an
inquiry as to his eligibility. (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal
brief on quo warranto.)
Furthermore, there is very disturbing
language (thanks to Phil at The Right Side of Life for highlighting this
today) used by this citizens grand jury which discusses the taking of
property and suggests other violent means by which they intend to
enforce their presentments. This language is frightening and
totally illegal:
"The grand jury may distrain and oppress the
government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes,
lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have
been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."
Doubt About Obama Eligibility Spreads
The
concern over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S.
Constitution's demand that the office be occupied by a "natural born"
citizen is spreading, with additional writers conceding questions remain
about the dispute.
"Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's
birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the
embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," wrote Camille Paglia, a progressive author and columnist at Salon.com.
"The buck
stops with the top executive. But we all know how little executive
experience Barack Obama has had. At a certain point, however, Obama
will face an inescapable administrative crux. Arriving at the White
House, he understandably stayed in his comfort zone by bringing old
friends and allies with him …. But these comrades may not have the
practical skills or broad perspective to help Obama govern," wrote Paglia.
Citing "one needless gaffe after another," including the
"embarrassing incident" in which Obama bowed to the king of Saudi
Arabia, she wrote about the "ambiguities" about his birth certificate
and the "troubling" status of Obama's concealed educational records.
Salon's Alex Koppelman wrote, "You might think these rumors would
have died off... Instead, they've intensified."
Talk radio host
and Newsmax columnist Barry Farber said, "Watergate was Nixon's
800-pound gorilla everybody talked about, who sat there until he broke
the sofa," he penned. "The location of Obama's birth is an 800-pound
gorilla that gets fatter every day and nobody -- at least nobody in
major media -- likes to admit its existence. There's never been a
coming-together of factors resembling this one in America's entire
political history.
"The question of Obama's birth place
threatens to undermine his very eligibility to serve, and to toss
America into a constitutional crisis of unfathomable proportions," he
said.
"The American people may not be all we used to be, but
we're not yet ready to roll over and smile at the sight of a confection
designed to masquerade as a birth certificate while we're being angrily
denied a look at the real thing," he wrote.
Philip J. Berg,
Esq. is the first attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama
challenging Senator Obama's lack of Constitutional
"qualifications/eligibility" to serve as President of the United States.
His cases are still pending. Berg announced today that
an appeal has been filed in the Hollister case for several reasons.
The decision by Judge Robertson in dismissing
Berg's case
showed further his bias as he made statements that were totally untrue
and no evidence thereof had been presented. Specifically, Judge
Robertson stated how Obama’s citizenship has been "vetted, blogged,
texted, twittered" during the two years of his campaign. This statement
regarding Obama is outrageous as Obama was never vetted or otherwise
questioned.
Further, Judge Robertson keeps referring to Obama
being "native-born," a new term in the efforts to justify Obama’s
"natural born" citizenship. The Constitution and all lawsuits attempting to discover
the truth about Obama refer to the words in the Constitution, that
being "Natural Born."
Without testimony being presented, Judge
Robertson decided Berg's Interpleader case was "frivolous," a decision that
he completely differs with.
Judge Robertson referred to attorney
Joyce and Berg as "agents provocateurs." Berg says he is honored by this
designation because it shows that his team determined to expose the HOAX
of Obama, the greatest HOAX upon the citizens of the United States in
the history of our country, over 230 years.
An official in the office of Kentucky's elections chief has referred
to state Attorney General Jack Conway for investigation the issue of
Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
In a letter to
Conway, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Leslie A. Fugate noted the
issue of "President Barack Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in
Kentucky."
"Because our office does not have investigative
powers … we are referring the matter to your office," she wrote.
The letter followed a visit to elections officials by California
attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms
Foundation on several court cases challenging Obama's eligibility.
A committee of concerned citizens accompanied Taitz to Fugate's
office to ask that the eligibility issue be investigated.
There
was no immediate word on the status of any investigative work that might
be launched by investigators for Conway, the 49th attorney general for
Kentucky, who was elected in 2007 and has made targeting cybercrimes a
priority.
If a formal investigation actually is begun it
apparently would be the first time the many lawsuit plaintiffs across
the country would see a door opening to some answers about the murky
circumstances surrounding Obama's eligibility to be president.
The Right Side of Life is
reporting that
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for
Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, posted on his web site that two of the
Defendants, USA and Barack Hussein Obama, had asked and were
granted a 15-day extension for time to respond:
Two defendants in
the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, Barack Obama and
the USA, have filed an "Entry of Appearance" and have requested a 15 day
extension to the time allotted to them to respond. This is beyond the 60
days they were provided initially. When the government is the defendant,
the government is given 60 days to respond. With the filing today, they
asked for another 15 days and the court granted it. The new response
date is May 5th, 2009. For more details see the
documents at SCRIBD.com.
Obama Attorney Threatens Sanctions
After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson
of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is
constitutionally eligible to occupy the Oval Office, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a
letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden. (Hemenway had enjoined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton's
ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania
and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against
public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as
one million dollars.) The letter, written by Obama attorney
Robert F. Bauer, states the following:
"I represent President
Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that,
in light of the District Court’s March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in
Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the
reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s order, the suit is frivolous and
should not be pursued."
"Should you decline to withdraw this
frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions,
including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule
Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."
Mr. Hemenway's
response to the letter was a promise to "write and protest and attack
those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will
continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or
injure those who are opposed to "transparency" and "openness" and
honesty in governmental operations -- all those good and vague promises
that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter."
Obama may be
using campaign funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by
Americans, as his campaign has paid more than $1 million to his top
lawyer since the election.
According to Federal Election
Commission records, Obama For America
paid $688,316.42 to international
law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.
The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services
between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 -- to the tune of $378,375.52.
Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie -- top lawyer for Obama, Obama's
presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's
Organizing for America -- is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending
Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
As
WorldNewsDaily.com reported earlier, Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff
Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro,
threatening sanctions if he doesn't withdraw his appeal of the
eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the
issue already had been "twittered."
Bauer's warning was dated
April 3rd and delivered via letter to the plaintiff's attorney, John D. Hemenway. It is not the first such warning issued. Lawyers trying to
kill a similar California lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan
Keyes also said they would seek sanctions against the plaintiff's
attorneys in that case unless they left the issue of the president's
eligibility alone.
"For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's
ruling, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued," Bauer's letter
warned. "Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be
informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses
and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38
and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."
Bauer also represented
Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg's eligibility lawsuit and various other
legal challenges. He and the White House have not responded to WND's
request for comment.
Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients
such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also
represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged bodyguard and
driver.
The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds
to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of
their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.
These illegal disbursements are for
just ONE of Obama's law firms. What is Obama hiding that is worth
more than a million dollars?
When I get a chance, I'll go through
this list to see what other surprises are in here -- DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE
-- OBAMA FOR AMERICA -- FEC Committee ID #: C00431445 -- Report type:
April Quarterly -- Filed 04/15/2009
Delay And Deny
Government lawyers defending
President Obama and Congress in a lawsuit alleging that he's ineligible
to occupy the Oval Office and that members of the House and Senate
violated the constitutional rights of citizens by refusing to
investigate want still
more time to respond to the accusations.
The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other lawsuits
that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November
election.
It was filed in January by attorney Mario Apuzzo of
New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson,
Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants
Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of
Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Even though extensions had been granted to
an initial round of requests to delay the proceedings, the government
now says it needs even more time to prepare a response to a question
that could be answered with a five-minute telephone call from Obama to
Hawaiian officials asking that his birth documentation be made public.
Instead, a request submitted by Ralph Marra Jr., the acting U.S.
attorney, and Elizabeth Pascal, the assistant U.S. attorney in New
Jersey, explains that the Department of Justice, operating under Obama
appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, still is working on a decision
on representation for the defendants.
"The failure to file an
answer, move, or to otherwise respond before the expiration of the time
specified is not the result of any neglect on any of the Defendants'
parts," the court filing submitted yesterday said.
"Representation decisions are made by a specialized group of individuals
in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. In order to provide a
fair opportunity for the Department to review this matter and to
complete the representation determinations, Defendants respectfully
request an extension of twenty (20) days from the date of this Order in
which to answer, move, or otherwise respond," the court filing said.
Yahoo! Answers has the following
report posted as an "Open Question."
In a move certain to
fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the
group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of
President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released
today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro,
received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an
undergraduate at the school.
The transcript was released by
Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by
the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that
Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship
for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign
citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun
that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.
Update: Here
is the same report. The International Press Association is
crediting the Associated Press (AP) as the source.
This report is
posted here, because it's popping up all over the Internet, but I'm
suspicious of it and would classify it as a rumor until
somebody posts the court documents.
In a case brought by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Ambassador
Alan Keyes, Judge Michael P. Kenny threw out
a subpoena issued to Occidental College to provide copies of Obama's
records of attendance. Now there may be another case or another
finding, but that's the last info I have.
Of course, these rumors could be put to
rest if Obama would just release his bona fides, instead of spending
more than $1 million dollars on lawyers.
According to Politico,
"the FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal
fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure
in office or campaigns."
However, Obama is illegally using campaign funds to fight the disclosure
of his college records from Occidental because they might show that he
enrolled as a foreign citizen. Why else would he hire a high-priced lawyer whose other clients
include Amazon, Starbucks, and Microsoft? His campaign has
spent almost $700,000 on just this one law firm -- and he has other
law teams actively denying the American People reasonable access to his
birth certificate and scholastic and medical records.
Why?
Occidental College Subpoena
The American Independent Party is
suing barry. Alan Keyes, presidential candidate, Wiley Drake VP
candidate and Markham Robinson Chairman of the American Independent
Party. It’s being handled by Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz -- the same
attorney for Gail Lightfoot et al -- and has the same premise.
Lightfoot being Ron Paul’s vice presidential candidate.
In case
you don’t know, Alan Keyes was the last minute GOP replacement to oppose
barry in his 2004 US Senate race. barry’s opponent had to drop out
because his sealed divorce records were made public in a not so
mysterious happenstance. And in true barry style, after the judge ruled
and it was a done deal barry said they shouldn’t be used.
They
were able to secure a subpoena for Barry’s records from Occidental
College. Relevant text. See
links below for background and the full subpoena.
1-15-09
Keyes, Drake, Robinson v Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State,
Obama and Biden et al.
Subpoena: Occidental College, Los Angeles,
California
Academia and housing records of Barack Hussein Obama,
including but not limited to approximately two years September 1979 to
June 1981.
SUBPOENA AFFIDAVIT:
These documents are
material to the issues in this case in that they are relevant to the
following issues in this litigation.
The gravamen of the Petition
is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein
Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to be President of the United States
pursuant to the requirements of that office in the United States
Constitution. The records sought may provide documentary evidence,
and/or admission by said Defendant, as to said eligibility or lack
thereof.
Senator Obama has filed responsive pleadings in this
matter and is represented by counsel, and has the opportunity to this
production should he so desire.
Good cause exists for this
production under the Subpoena Duces Tecum, in that the testimony will be
elicited from the original records obtained from the witness named
herein, and there is no other process available to secure said
testimony.
Obama Deal Violates 5th Amendment
If Obama expected the senior
creditors of Chrysler to fold their tents under political pressure, they
may have gotten a rude shock today. Thomas Lauria, who accused the White
House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the
White House press corps, has
filed a motion to halt the administration’s
machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Lauria and
his allies claim that the Obama administration has violated the
Constitution in their bid to devalue the senior creditors’ holdings on
behalf of junior creditors, and have some precedent to support the
allegation.
The heart of the argument starts on page 8 (via HA
commenter Outlander):
III. The Taking of Collateral through a
Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.
13. The Treasury Department relies on TARP as the purported authority to
justify the disparate treatment under the 363 Sale, even though TARP was
enacted after the Senior Lenders’ liens on the Debtors’ property were
already in place. The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a
secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in
bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank
v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a
Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid
losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford
provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the
security interests either (i) with the lender’s consent, purchasing the
property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two
to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from
the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years
during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set
by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors,
with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57.
14. Justice Brandeis noted that the "essence of a mortgage" is the right
of the secured party "to insist upon full payment before giving up his
security [i.e., the property pledged]." Radford, 295 U.S. at 580. In
invalidating the statute, the Court stated that "[t]he bankruptcy power
. . . is subject to the Fifth Amendment," and that the pernicious aspect
of this law was its "taking of substantive rights in specific property
acquired by the bank prior to the act." Id. at 589-90 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not pass a law that could be used to deny to
secured creditors their rights to realize upon the specific property
pledged to them or "the right to control meanwhile the property during
the period of default." Id. at 594. That is precisely what the Treasury
Department would have Chrysler do here, with respect to the Chrysler
Non-TARP Lenders' property rights that were acquired prior to the
enactment of TARP.
15. Relying on purported authority provided by
TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be
stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens -- thereby
impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets
-- so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the
benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid
much more than the Senior Lenders. But, even assuming that TARP provides
the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors
and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP
was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors
and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically
disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on
property.
16. Here, the proposed sale of the Debtors’ assets will
leave the Senior Lenders with a diluted pool of assets and no further
interests in the operating assets covered by their specific liens. The
Constitution forbids this application of a law retroactively to undercut
the Senior Lenders’ pre-existing property rights in favor or inferior
creditors.
17. Finally, that the Treasury Department would take
these unconstitutional actions to help the United States address
difficult economic times is not an answer. Indeed, the same
justification was expressly rejected in Radford, where Justice Brandeis
noted that a statute which violated secured creditors’ rights, but which
was passed for sound public purposes relating to the Great Depression,
could not be saved because "the Fifth Amendment commands that, however
great the nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even
for a wholly public use without just compensation." Id. at 602.
18. What is really striking here is that what is being proposed by the
Sale Motion would strip the Collateral away and allow it to be put to
use as new capital in New Chrysler for the benefit of existing and other
creditors -- even though the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders have been given no
opportunity to realize upon that Collateral to the point of full
repayment ahead of at least $14 billion of selectively identified
unsecured creditors.
One might think that a Constitutional
scholar like Barack Obama would have already known that, but either this
precedent escaped him or he doesn’t care about it at all. Brandeis acted
to uphold contract law, especially in the face of a government interest
in paying off politically-connected unsecured creditors ahead of the
senior creditors. There is no other reason for Brandeis to make that
decision, as only government could insert itself into the contractual
relationship during a bankruptcy proceeding -- just as Obama has done
with Chrysler.
Lauria’s argument seems very compelling here,
especially given Brandeis’ rather clear assertion that bankruptcy
proceedings have to fall within the 5th Amendment -- and that government
can’t implement a taking to satisfy its own arbitrary aims by ignoring
the relationship of the creditors to the default. We’ll see whether the
court rebukes Obama.
A Virginia congressman, very quietly, has
signed onto a
measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify
their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United
States.
WorldNewsDaily earlier reported when freshman Rep. Bill
Posey, R-Fla., filed
H.R.
1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
According to the Library of Congress' bill-tracking website, H.R.
1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for
election to the office of president to include with the committee's
statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate,
together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish
that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the
Office of President under the Constitution."
The plan has been
referred to the House committee on House administration, where it has
remained.
Now, Virginia Republican
Bob Goodlatte has signed
on as a co-sponsor, putting a notice on his website that it's one of the
efforts in which he's joining.
Forcing An Eligibility Decision
Bob Unruh
reports that an Ohio State University associate professor who includes
election law among his specialties says there is a logical legal
strategy to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue of
Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Daniel Tokaji
confirmed the thesis of a "First Impressions" column he'd written for
the Michigan Law Review that a lawsuit in a state court probably would
have the best chance at success in obtaining a decision.
WorldNetDaily.com has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's
occupancy in the Oval Office based on questions over his "natural born
citizen" status. The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to
the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether
he actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the
country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at
the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under
the law at the time.
Update:
-- I'm the paralegal who theorized from legal precedent that the U.S.
Supreme Court could address an apolitical question, thus getting around
the Political Questions Doctrine. That question happens to be #4
in Orly Taitz's current petition, and requests an authoritative
definition of Article II's Natural Born Citizen. Only
being a paralegal, I insisted Bob Unruh contact Prof. Daniel Tokaji.
It turned out to be a good article, except for Unruh completely
misquoting me for something I never said. T hat is the one sentence
about Obama not being a citizen, and circumstantial evidence.
The letter I wrote to the Supreme Court summarizes my theory, with most
of the serious jurisprudence between the lines. I posted it at
my legal blog.
Good news . . . H.R. 1503
requiring all presidential candidates submit certified birth data has
one co-sponsor. It should have one-hundred, but progress in noted
none-the-less.
Leonard A. Daneman (paralegalnm)
Obama's Strategy Of Delays
An attorney
handling one of the many lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's eligibility
to occupy the Oval Office is urging a court to deny a demand from a
lawyer for the president for still more time to answer simple questions
such as whether Obama was born in Hawaii, citing the dangers of having
an president many identify as a "usurper" in office.
"Whether or
not the president of the United States is eligible for the office he
currently occupies is of utmost national important," wrote attorney
Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey in a motion opposing Obama's request for more
time.
"Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action, that
significantly impacts on the lives of Americans," he continued.
"It can be argued that Mr. Obama is currently the most powerful human
being on the planet. He could conceivably end all life on earth in a
single day. Every executive action that Mr. Obama takes impacts not only
the plaintiffs but also every other American," he said in the legal
document submitted in the court case yesterday.
Apuzzo filed his
lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T.
Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
The
action names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress,
the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick
Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Apuzzo told
WND
that while it may be good strategy on the part of a defense lawyer for
Obama to delay answering such questions as long as possible, the
American people also are impacted by the case every day in which there
is not a resolution.
He outlines in the document that while
ordinary court rules require answers to such lawsuits within 60 days, in
this case the actions of the defense lawyer probably will generate a
delay of 124 days -- or more -- for Obama's answers.
Apuzzo said the first issue is simple: Was Obama born in Hawaii as he has said? The second question seeking a definition of "natural born" citizen is
more complicated.
WND reported earlier on the request submitted
by Ralph Marra Jr., the acting U.S. attorney, and Elizabeth Pascal, the
assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, that explains that the Department
of Justice, operating under Obama appointee Attorney General Eric
Holder, still is working on a decision on representation for the
defendants.
Appeals Court Delays Eligibility Arguments
Arguments that had been expected to be taking place before a federal
appeals court right about now on whether U.S. citizens have a right to
know that their president is eligible for the office he holds have been
delayed.
Philip Berg, the first lawyer to take the issue of
Barack Obama's compliance with the U.S. Constitution's requirements for
president to court, says he's been told by officials with the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals that the oral arguments in his Berg vs. Obama
case, No. 088-4340, have been put off.
"About two months ago I
received notice that the Third Circuit would schedule 'oral argument'
the last week of May 2009 or the first week of June 2009," he said.
Not hearing from the court further, his office contacted the judges and
was told the earliest time the arguments now could be held would be in
September or October.
"I am totally disappointed that there has
been this delay," said Berg, who documents progress on his three
separate lawsuits at his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"I am
determined to keep fighting lawfully through our court system; I believe
there is a judge or justices that will grant us discovery as it is
essential … that the truth be told," he said.
Judge R. Barclay
Surrick ruled that ordinary citizens cannot sue to ensure that a
presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of
the office of president.
The judge said Congress could allow
that, by determining "that citizens, voters, or party members should
police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the presidency,"
but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that
ability.
"Until that time," Surrick wrote, "voters do not have
standing to bring the sort of challenge that plaintiff attempts to
bring."
Activity In Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case
The federal court in Camden, N,J has granted the defendants (Obama and
Congress) a second request for a time extension but wrote a lengthy
order reasoning the importance of the case.
Granting the delay
indicates the court is taking this case very seriously -- as I read the
order.
My idea to sue Congress over this matter and the
violations of my rights may be the key to getting this issue finally
addressed. The judge in New Jersey indicates in his order that this case raises
very important constitutional issues. You can read the full order at
this quick post link.
Attorney
Mario Apuzzo is in the NJ Superior court the next
two days on another case and will comment further as soon as he gets
time.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. Lead Plaintiff
FReeper
RXSID adds, "The Court has also received and reviewed numerous letters
from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22,
23, 24,25]."
Excellent! This shows that this issue isn't occurring in
a vacuum!
"In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of
their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to
conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and
therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United
States."
"In support of her present motion, Ms. Pascal argues
that on April 24, 2009 she learned that Defendant Cheney requested and
was granted representation by the DOJ. Ms. Pascal further argues that on
April 9, 2009, she learned that Defendants Pelosi and the House of
Representatives also requested representation by the DOJ, which has not
yet been decided."
"Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant
issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel
to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the
Defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in the case is
not simple and straightforward. Thus, since Defendants need more time to
identify and engage counsel, their request for more time to respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint is reasonable and appropriate under the
circumstances."
"The Court further finds that granting Defendants
an extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiffs or materially delay
the resolution of the case. The Court is confident that after all the
attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the
case will proceed expeditiously. Accordingly, for good cause shown IT IS
on this 8 day of June, 2009 hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion
Extending Time in which to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve their response to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure no later than June 29,2009"
Eligibility Dispute Described As Serious
A judge
hearing one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be
president has taken the unusual step of
describing the dispute as
a
serious constitutional issue and further has begun adding letters of
comment from the public to the court record.
Word of
the action
by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider in Camden, N.J., comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the
Kerchner vs. Obama
case, which Apuzzo filed in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner
Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson
Jr.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress,
the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick
Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses
on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution. That
document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify
the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
