The Original Lawsuits
 

Custom Search



What is Obama hiding and why is he hiding it?
 

Lawsuits

COLB

T O F

   


Obama Lawsuits
--------

Federal District
Court Filings

  

help fight the media

 

 

item

description

Note: Items posted to this page are in chronological order.
The
Issue
The issue that the court must settle 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.

Details and artifacts here . . .
Discovery 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.

Read the whole thing . . .

Ask yourself, why doesn't Obama just make his birth certificate public and end this thing?  What could he possibly be hiding?
Particularly Serious Embarrassment People forget that Obama’s lawyers have already admitted that whatever is in Obama’s bona fides would, "cause a defined and serious injury" to Obama and/or the DNC.  During the Federal Circuit Court ruling on Phil Berg’s claim, Judge, R. Barclay Surrick, ruled that any objection or refutation had to be served within thirty days.

The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order.  In these motions, Obama’s lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, college admissions records etc.) would "cause a defined and serious injury" to Obama and/or the DNC.  They argued that revealing these documents raises a "legitimate privacy concern" and the above mentioned risk that "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation."

The source of that embarrassment was not specified.  That’s why Obama fights the release of his bona fides -- "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation." -- his own attorneys said so.
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 is the legal hit-man for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

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's
Outrage
Update to previous item.

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)
Another
Lawsuit
Another Lawsuit! -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Steve Marquis
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvo...plesvoice.html

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?

This email was sent to beckwith@theobamafile.com by
contact@contrariancommentary.com.

This is the third lawsuit that I know of -- they would all go away if Obama set his birth certificate on the table -- instead he sends lawyers -- why?

Update -- Judge Bert I Ayabe Wednesday set a hearing in the case of Andy Martin vs. Linda Lingle, First Circuit for Honolulu, No. 08-1-2147-10.

The hearing is set for November 18, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.
Rule 36 And here's the latest in the Berg lawsuit:

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.

Details here
Berg Goes
All-In!
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.
One From
New Jersey
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Docket #: 08A407

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

Read the whole thing
Alan Keyes
Sues
Here comes another lawsuit!


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

Read the whole thing
Divided
Loyalties
Obama’s Eligibility Problem

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.]

Part One
Part Two
The Dude
Abides
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.

As of 1:17 PM the renewed application has not been updated to the
US Supreme Court automated Docket.


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 was not 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.)

Tons of documentation at this site.

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?
As Does
Strunk
Chris Strunk has four active cases. They are:

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.

Details here . . .
Natural Born 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.'"

Read more . . .
What Is A
Natural Born
Citizen?
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."

Read more . . .
What Next? 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.
Perkins v.
ELG

The Law -- Perkins v. ELG


One attorney, practicing in the federal courts, believes Leo Donofrio's (NJ) case is actually looking pretty solid -- read this article at http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

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.

Check this out -- America Wants to Know!

Alan Keys Ambassador Alan Keyes says:

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)

There's more.
Today's
The Day
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."

Stand by me...
Rule of Four 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.
Current
Lawsuits

At the Supreme Court:
 

bulletPennsylvania (Phil Berg): (12/02/08)
bullet Berg v. Obama -- History
bulletNew Jersey (Leo Donofrio): (12/02/08)
bullet Donofrio v. Wells -- History
bulletConnecticut (Cort Wrotnowski): (12/02/08)
bullet Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz -- History
bulletNew York (Christopher Strunk): (12/04/08) SCOTUS Docket number may be produced soon
bullet Chris Strunk NY Cases -- History
bulletTexas (Darrel Hunter): (12/01/08) SCOTUS Docket number unknown
bullet Hunter v. Obama -- History
 

At the State level:
 

bulletCalifornia:
bulletAlan Keyes: Keyes v. Bowen (12/01/08) -- History
bulletJoan Corbett: Corbett v. Bowen (11/16/08) -- History
bulletGail Lightfoot: Lightfoot v. Bowen (12/06/08
bulletDENIED (CA Supreme Court); being submitted to SCOTUS Associate Justice Kennedy -- History
bulletGeorgia:
bulletRev. Tom Terry: Terry v. Handel (11/12/08) -- History
bulletHawaii:
bulletAndy Martin: Martin v. Lingle (11/26/08) -- History
bulletKentucky:
bulletDaniel John Essek: Essek v. Obama (12/01/08) -- History
bulletNorth Carolina:
bulletLt. Col. Donald Sullivan: Sullivan v. Marshall (11/28/08) -- History
bulletTexas:
bulletJody Brockhausen: Brockhausen v. Andrade (11/19/08) -- History
bulletWashington State:
bullet James Broe Case (12/05/08) -- Recently filed, no History

 

Defunct Cases:

bulletPatriot Brigade Case -- History
bulletCalifornia: David Archbold -- History
bulletVirginia: Wild Bill -- History
bulletNew York: Dan Smit -- History
bulletWashington: Steve Marquis -- History
bulletOhio: David Neal -- History; Carol Greenberg -- History
Natural
Born
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.

Not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Irony 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.

I got it on tape. -- Joe Thunder
Cases
Update
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."

But Nancy Pelosi says he's on the level.
Silence Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma:

(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.

More . . .
On And On 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 that Barack 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 Certification of 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

M
y 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.


More ...

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.

I gave him . . . continued . . .
Obama Can
Not Be POTUS
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.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.

Read this guy!
Open Letter To
US Attorney
Jeffrey Taylor
From Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Read it here
The Lawsuits
Are Dead
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.

Now what?
No Proof 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.

Taitz notes that references to the case were erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, shortly after Obama, the defendant, met with eight of the nine justices behind closed doors.

It happened just two days before her case was scheduled to be reviewed in conference.

More . . .
Documentation
At SCOTUS
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.

More here . . .
Hollister
Case
Appealed
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.

Update on Berg's three pending cases here . . .
Kentucky
Asked To
Investigate
Obama's
Eligibility
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.

More here . . .
Obama
Granted
Time
Extension
Request
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."

There's more here . . .
More Than
$1 Million
Paid To
Top Law Firm
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.

Continue reading here . . .
Did Obama
Receive A
Fulbright
Scholarship?
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."

That seems to be a fairly
straightforward rule by the FEC.

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.

Via HotAir.com . . .
Now
There Are Two
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.

Continue reading here . . .

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."

More here . . .
Captain Connie Rhodes, MD Refuses To Deploy Orly Taitz has filed a new law suit filed in the Western District of Texas.  Taitz is representing Flight Surgeon, Captain Connie Rhodes, MD, who refuses to be deployed to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the Commander in Chief is verified:

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September 5th, 2009 (Exhibit A).  Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon.  On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq.  Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in Fort Benning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September 5th, 2009 until September 17th 2010.  Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however as a US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain.

Plaintiff presents the key question in this case as one of first impression, never before decided in the history of the United States: Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de facto Commander-in-Chief? In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity?  In the alternative, does the issuance of orders based on a constitutionally infirm chain-of-command under Article II create or render military service as a mere "involuntary servitude" in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment which may be judicially enjoined?

Continue reading here . . .
DOJ To Judge:  Dump Ambassador Keyes Lawsuit The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent attorney Orly Taitz, who is representing Ambassador Alan Keyes and 200 military members, is challenging Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president.

In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices.  Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can't be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can't show they are directly injured by Obama's presence in office.

"It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress," Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote.  "Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch." -- you don't say! -- so I guess if Obama secured his office through fraud, it's OK with the Obama JustUs Department -- what a shocking surprise!

Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military commander by Obama, the alleged usurper.  However, West and DeJute say that argument is too speculative.

"The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing," the government lawyers wrote. -- Same old argument -- "Standing" -- the American People have no right to know who and what Obama is, nor where he comes from -- he's special, you know.

Another plaintiff in the suit, Alan Keyes, is a three-time, longshot presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008.  Yet another is Gail Lightfoot, an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate in 2008. The DOJ argues that they were not directly aggrieved by Obama's election because they never had a mathematical chance of winning.

"The [lawsuit] does not allege, nor could it allege, that any of these Plaintiffs were even on the ballot in enough states in the year 2008 to gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election," the motion states. -- So what?  Since when did winning a political office become a prerequisite for running?

The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in "innuendo" and advancing "a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act."

Those arguments notwithstanding, the DOJ lawyers were pretty kind to the birthers and to Taitz, since the filings in the case are replete with spelling errors, among others. Taitz submitted another purported foreign birth certificate for Obama last week in a filing labeled, "Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama."

The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter.

This biased report could have been written by Obama, himself.  I have removed many of the pejoratives that Gerstein sprinkled "liberally" throughout the source article.  This Obot doesn't mention that Taitz is representing Ambassador Allen Keyes, the Independent Party candidate for POTUS, and 200 military officers and non-commissioned officers till halfway through this smear job.

I guess Gerstein believes that "a three-time, longshot presidential candidate" or "an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate" is not entitled to justice. These lefties make me want to hurl!  It's all justice for me, but not for thee, with these people.

Only an Obama JustUs Department, protector of the New Black Panther Party, could claim a plaintiff shouldn't be heard, shouldn't receive justice, because, "...they never had a mathematical chance of winning."

Furthermore, what in the hell is Justice Department lawyers doing defending Obama in this suit?  It's bad enough that Obama has illegally spent at least $600,000 from his campaign funds, to compensate Perkins Coie for legal services, to keep his bona fides from the American People -- now he's got Civil Service lawyers from the JJustUs Department representing him.

Gerstein, doesn't miss a chance to "Alinsky" Taitz and her clients because of "spelling errors."  I wonder how Gerstein would do if he had to write his cheap-shot article in Russian, Taitz' native language -- by the way, Taitz is a dentist as well as an attorney -- I wonder what professional degrees Gerstein holds?

We'll see tomorrow whether Federal District Court Judge, David O. Carter, a highly-decorated US Marine, will stand tall, or stand small.

I asked  an attorney practicing in the federal courts -- Why is the Department of Justice involved?  What legal business it of theirs?  Obama has his own attorneys.  These DOJ attorneys have signed this filing as "Attorneys for Defendants." -- this is her response:

I have no idea.  If it is a non-issue, they need to stay out of it.  I have not read their motion, but if they are arguing that the election has already occurred and the timing of the suit is the problem, then they must be grasping at straws.

If Obama is not eligible to be President under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution b/c he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., he is a Usurper and the challenge can happen at any time even under what Leo D'Onofrio called Quo Warranto action in the DC Court.

Obama could have used private lawyers, but he's trying to use the weight of the DOJ to intimidate the Judge into submission.

I think
Lucas Smith has something they don't want to have exposed.

And how come four DOJ attorneys are representing Obama in this matter?  George S. Cardona, Acting United States Attorney; Leon Weidman, Assistant United States Attorney; Roger W. West, Assistant United States Attorney, First Assistant Chief, Civil Division; and David A. DeJute, Assistant United States Attorney, all signed this filing as, "Attorneys for Defendants."

What happened to Obama's private attorneys?  Why are Civil Service attorneys representing the Usurper at the taxpayer's expense?   Is it just to intimidate the judge? 

If there's no case, how come it takes four high-ranking federal attorneys and a small army of private ones to defend Obama from the reasonable inquiries of American citizens?  Is this even legal?

And how did Gerstein get the word of the DOJ action -- he wrote this article last night -- in the middle of the night.  He timestamps his article at 02:27 AM (at end of article).

Who has Gerstein been getting his information from?  From Justice, that's who.  So Gerstein is obviously an Obama agent -- he's getting his talking points in the middle of the night from "sources unknown" inside the Obama "JustUs" Department.
Consul General Of Kenya Subpoenaed On September 9, 2009, a subpoena was issued by the District Court of the United States, 3rd Circuit, and has been served via registered mail (#RE184168898US) on the Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles.

The subpoena commands him to produce and permit the inspection and copying of the Certificate of Birth of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Source contains large graphic images and it's a slow-loading site -- be patient.
Posting
Suspended
There are many lawsuits at various stages, however, until one gets in front of a judge, I'm suspending further posts to this category.
   

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009
All right reserved