Answers to complaint due dates

historian · Senior Member

lawsuit filed re:Obama citizenship

arbilad · Head Chef

Not surprising that a Hitlary supporter is taking action on this, and so close to the democratic convention. It's possible that this guy is hoping to get an injunction against Obama getting nominated, and with no time left to reschedule the convention or do anything else about it, they'd of course nominate Hitlary.
There was a point in that post that was very interesting to me. Even if Obama was natural born, he lost that when he got adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen. Indonesian law, I read in another commentary, does not allow dual citizenship.

historian · Senior Member

Here's a little more information about this lawsuit. Obama, the DNC, and the Federal Elections Commission were served in the action and have until the following dates to provide documents, including Obama's birth certificate:

Answers to complaint due dates

Thursday, 11 September 2008 01:42 administrator

Berg v. Obama, et al. Civil Case No. 08-cv-04083

Answers are due from the various parties to the lawsuit as follows:

Barrack Obama September 24, 2008;

DNC: September 24, 2008 and

FEC: October 21, 2008 (Federal and Government Employees and Entities have sixty (60) days)

Garnering attention after alleging that Sen. Barack Obama was not born in U.S.

Thursday, 11 September 2008 01:25 administrator

By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff

WHITEMARSH - In a society criticized for being too litigious, lawsuits filed by local maverick attorney Philip Berg rank as some of the most sensational.

In the past decade, Berg challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks and filed a suit recently claiming that Sen. Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's election decision, the Lafayette Hill lawyer demanded that three Supreme Court justices be disbarred for alleged conflict of interest.

Several counts in the Sept. 11 lawsuit were eventually dismissed, Berg said, and the plaintiff, William Rodriguez, eventually withdrew the suit.

But the 64-year-old's legal challenge to Sen. Obama's birth records is currently percolating across the Internet blogosphere and has generated near 8 million hits on the attorney's Internet site, www.obamacrimes.com, he said during an interview Friday.

He has received about $2,500 in donations to help support the legal action.

Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and Montgomery County Democratic Party chairman, was prepared for an onslaught of e-mail messages and phone calls attacking him. However, the opposite has occurred.

"I'm totally amazed by the positive responses we're getting," he said.

His office received more than 600 phone calls after the public got wind of the suit, and he's been interviewed on about a dozen radio talk shows.

arbilad · Head Chef

I had heard a rumor that it had been thrown out. It's interesting to see that, on the contrary, it's moving forward.

historian · Senior Member

I read an internet rumor that the judge dismissed this motion to dismiss (confusing, huh?), but haven't found any substantiation of it.

Here is the last press release from the attorney who filed the original action:

It is believed Obama is an illegal alien

For Immediate Release: - 10/06/08

(Contact info and pdf of press release below)

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 Obamas 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.

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his Vault [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.

arbilad · Head Chef

Well hey, if he's an illegal alien, then he has a better chance of getting the illegal alien vote.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Somebody better get the lead out if anything's gonna' come of this.

historian · Senior Member

now in 7 states

Fregramis · Senior Member

RE: lawsuit filed re:Obama citizenship

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I am surprised that birth certificate hasn't been "fixed" already. I'm sure it could have been.

It would not surprise me if at some point he stepped down and Joe Biden became president.

Fregramis · Senior Member

And now it looks as if the Federal Judge has dismissed the case on the grounds that a citizen does not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce the law at issue (that the President must be a natural U.S. citizen). The judge says only the congress can do that.

Well, that aint gonna happen anytime soon with a Congress tipped towards the Democrats!

So I guess that whole 60 day deadline is now a moot point since Berg didn't have the power to bring this case up in the first place. How convenient.

Are there any attorneys out there in Bountiful land who can shed some light on this?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

This bit about a federal judge dismissing the case on the grounds that a citizen does not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce the law at issue may well be yet another case of judges "legislating from the bench".

Even though "All legislative Powers herein (in the Constitution) granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States....", both presidents and the federal judiciary have expanded thier powers by operating completely outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Judicial and executive legislation has been condoned for years now by the Congress. Presidential "executive orders" have become more numerous that laws passed by Congress. And the Supreme Court has frequently pretended to interepret a law and twisted its meaning to create an entirely new law.

Organist · Senior Member

Isn't having proper legal standing to file a lawsuit well established US legal practice? Doesn't sound like legislating from the bench. I haven't read the legal decision, but it makes sense, since Congress is the main group consitutionally empowered to keep the president in check, something they haven't done for years for legitimate reasons.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Funny thing, I don't think any of his supporters would give a flip if he was a citizen.

It's a WEIRD WORLD, PEOPLE!

historian · Senior Member

Coco, I agree that many do not care about Obama's qualifications, but we should care. The Constitutional requirement is there so that our leader will be loyal to the country and its citizens. Who is Obama loyal to?

October 28, 2008

The Great Obama Swindle of 2008
Raymond Kraft

PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN

I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.

Why I am so sure?

I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.

In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.

Obama is tap dancing.

If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.

But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.

But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:

1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.

2. He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.

3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his laywers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.

Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?

PART TWO
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?

In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.

This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.

Let's do the analysis.

1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.

2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.

3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. Its just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.

4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.

I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.

PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS

Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."

Members of Congress take this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.

Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.

And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.

So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.

All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.

PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.

My opinion.

Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.

According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up the cover up of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.

In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.

In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.

Now, I could be wrong.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.

Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

arbilad · Head Chef

Organist wrote:

Isn't having proper legal standing to file a lawsuit well established US legal practice? Doesn't sound like legislating from the bench. I haven't read the legal decision, but it makes sense, since Congress is the main group consitutionally empowered to keep the president in check, something they haven't done for years for legitimate reasons.

The thing is, Jason, that I don't think anyone here has a problem with the legal concept of "standing". I agree, for instance, that if my neighbor hires painters that do a horrible job of painting his house that I have no grounds (or standing) to sue. But this is different. This is a US Citizen concerned with the qualifications of someone who wants to be president. I most definitely think that he has standing to bring the case.

historian · Senior Member

Berg v. Obama: The Day of Reckoning

Thomas J. Latino, Esq.

Thomas.latino@biotechcapitalgroup.com

The deadline has come and gone. At 5pm Eastern Standard Time, yesterday, December 1st, 2008 the case of Berg v. Obama reached a seminal moment. Yesterday was the deadline for the Obama legal team to file their response to the Berg Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. There was nothing. According to the Supreme Court's docket for the case nothing was filed overnight. Mr. Obama has done what hasn't been done before, he has made history twice, Mr. Obama has blatantly ignored a request from the Supreme Court of the United Statesour highest and most revered legal institution; Mr. Obama, quite frankly has thumbed his nose at the highest court in our land.

Being an attorney, I know full well that Rule 11 of the United States Supreme Court does not specifically dictate a Respondent file a reply brief "unless specifically ordered by the Court"and to be fair we have no evidence to show that Mr. Obama was indeed ordered by the Court to produce such a reply. However, it is out of sheer reverence and respect for the institution, if not to underscore the merits of your case and the lacking of your opponents' that almost ALL Respondents file some sort of reply with the court. Mr. Obama's actions yesterday reek of a type of arrogance that even I as an attorney never displayed to any court nor have I ever witnessed such flippant behavior during my legal career.

This is not some low level circuit court; this is the United States Supreme Court. Why would the Obama legal team find it necessary to work so diligently in the Federal Court in Pennsylvania filing Motions to Dismiss and Protective Orders and not even file a Waiver of Rights with the Supreme Court? One can surmise two logical possible explanations for Mr. Obama's strategy: (1) Mr. Obama is putting all his chips on the hopes that 4 justices will view Mr. Berg's petition as laughable and deny his Petition for the Writ and (2) Refer to #1.

So what now? Now the issue rests with 9 robed clad justices residing in the inner most chambers of America's most revered legal institution. We will know more likely than not before the week is out whether or not the court will hear this case. The justices now find themselves in a most unenviable position. They have to weigh the consequences of their actions. If they vote to hear the case, do they stay the Electoral College vote? And if they find for Berg what then? Do we have new elections if Mr. Obama fails to show he is a natural born citizen and who will be responsible for setting a time table?

What if they deny Berg's petition? That answer is relatively simple. This issue goes away once and for all. The other 14 lawsuits pending in various states will suffer a mortal blowall the district courts in those cases will do is cite the US Supreme Court case of Berg v. Obama ___ US____ (2008) as binding precedent and that will be that.

What will the justices have to consider? These 9 justices are charged with deciding if one American citizen has the standing to legitimately challenge the constitutional qualifications of our President-Elect. A man who will be our leader, our public servant, our Commander in Chief; a man who will, god forbid, be charged with the responsibility of sending our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters into harms way to fight and possibly die for our beloved nation. The court will determine if Berg is directly injured by Obama's transgressions. If Berg has any siblings in the US Armed forces, it would seem he would have a direct interest and the possibility for direct harm if the President sent his sibling to fight and die should not have been allowed to serve in the first place. Indeed, all Americans would have a vested interest and thus standing.

As noteworthy as this argument is, the court has not forgotten Bush v. Gore and the fallout that decision created. There are those on the court that remember the hit the court's approval rating took after many on the left accused it of "stealing" an election and "injecting law into a political, democratic process". These are valid arguments; after all, judges are political animals at heart; they have to be elected to the local circuit and to be successfully elected one has to be a decent politician. It is for this reason that I am still uncertain as to what the court will ultimately decide. On one hand we have the gravity of the US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1; on the other we have a court who has its ear to the ground, who can ascertain the public fallout not only if they agree to hear the case but if the eventually were to find for Berg. It is very likely, the court will decide to simply "punt" the issue and avoid opening a can of worms.

I conclude this article with a simple question that I realize will generate a myriad of responses, "If Mr. Berg, an American citizen, does not hold the right to challenge the constitutional requirements of the President-Elect of the United States, then who among us will ever; who among us will have the authority to challenge such an individual if there are legitimate questions surrounding his or her qualifications?" Some will undoubtedly answer that Congress is the only one to hold such authority. Do we really want a partisan, elected body -many of them belonging to the same party as the President-Elect involved in such an issue? Allowing Congressmen to interject themselves would turn the process into some sort of morbid, grand-standing ploy, everyone clamoring for their 15 seconds of fame. This issue is something Congress would be to inept to handle.

If Berg's Petition is granted, it will be an oral argument session that will go down as one of the seminal moments in the judiciary's 200 year history. There is no greater charge entrusted to the Supreme Court than to prevent any grievous usurpation of the US Constitution; it is there solemn dutyregardless of political ideology or identificationto entrust the fundamental rule of law is upheld.

-- Edited by historian at 22:56, 2008-12-02

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Thru all of this I find it strange that Obama has not simply come up with the birth certificate in question, if such exists. I suspect further delays will be granted to produce evidence of US citizenship at birth or some other technical excuse will be created to stall further. Default of a court order is an open and shut cause for affirming the case. I'll bet the judge involved is obviously consulting with the certain latter-day gadiantons on how to get out of this predicament without declaring Obama's candidacy illegal. To me this is further evidence that the judicial branch of the US is compromised and the Constitution is dead whenever it gets in the way of the agenda of the latter-day gadiantons controlling this country.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Unless Obama can show a legitimate birth certificate, I think we owe him no allegiance or respect as president. I anticipate referring to him as Mr. Obama, and not President Obama, for whatever good that does.

Organist · Senior Member

Wasn't that the response of many liberals when Bush won the presidency? "He's not the real president." "He's not my president." At the moment he is still senator Obama, so unless we do away with all titles (which is a legitamite position if done systematically), then he should be referred to as senator. (I wonder who came up with the idea of knighting some "president-elect", because I don't seem to recall that anywhere.)

So senator Obama's legal team didn't file a document they weren't required to file?

historian · Senior Member

Here's another snippet about the citizenship challenges in the Supreme Court. The case they reviewed on Friday, December 5th, will not be considered, BUT there is another similar one up for conference on Friday the 12th. And Berg is still trying to have his case considered.

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned aside a request to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, in a vote scheduled for Monday, until Barack Obama documents his eligibility for the office under the Constitution's requirement that presidents must be "natural born" citizens.

The action came in a case brought to the high court by Philip J. Berg, who alleges Obama is ineligible to be president.

Berg had asked the court for an injunction the stay the Electoral College votes and prohibit Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate from counting any votes until that demanded proof arrives.

The injunction was sought while Berg awaits the court's determination on whether it will hear his writ of certiorari requesting review of a dismissal of his case in U.S. District Court in eastern Pennsylvania.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

However, the high court, in a terse website entry, confirmed the application for the injunction was "denied by Justice [David] Souter."

The controversy, however, remains far from over. The latest ruling was sandwiched between Monday's decision not to review arguments against Obama's candidacy in the Donofrio v. Wells case from New Jersey and a conference that is scheduled by the justices this Friday on another case raising virtually the same concerns.

The case brought by Leo Donofrio alleged Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president because of his dual citizenship at birth, as does the new case, Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut secretary of state.

The Wrotnowski case had been rejected by Justice Ruth Ginsburg Nov. 26, but then was resubmitted to Justice Antonin Scalia. There was no word of its fate for about 10 days, then the court's website confirmed it has been distributed for this Friday's conference, a meeting at which the justices consider whether to take cases.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

"Not one legislator, Republican or Democrat, Senator or Representative, could or did refute even one of the undisputed facts concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Not one!"

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter138.htm

1. Barack Hussein Obama has not been vetted or certified eligible to the office of president of the United States by any agency tasked to do so or authorized to do so.
2. Not one American citizen, not one Senator, not one Representative has seen, touched or examined Barack Hussein Obamas vault copy Hawaii birth certificate. While October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health, Hawaii, issued a press release in which she stated that she had seen and verified that a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama did exist; she did not state what was on it nor did she state that it showed that Obama was born in Hawaii.

"But indifference of the facts is not an excuse for the failure by Senators and Representatives to uphold the U.S. Constitution and their oath of office. It has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen and is not, therefore, eligible to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution."

Organist · Senior Member

It hasn't been proven, (beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise), that Barack obama is not an American citizen. The "proof" offered is conjecture, speculation, and conspiracy theory. None of that holds up in a court of law or simple common sense.

It is difficult to accumulate the amount of proof necessary to quell the beliefs are ardent conspiracy theorists. There are probably 10 contingency theories ready to pop out if he were to personally hand his birth certificate over to those who want to see it, handle it, and have a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true.

There is also no provision in the constitution on how to ascertain citizenship. Therefore, that should be a state's power with no federal interference. The state of Hawaii has officially concluded that President Obama is in fact a US citizen.

-- Edited by Organist at 06:43, 2009-01-20

arbilad · Head Chef

The only proof necessary for the majority would be to present a birth certificate in a court case. That he hasn't is damning. That he has spent a million dollars to fight the cases, instead of $10 to produce a copy of the birth certificate, is also damning.
And there is so much they've falsified, like the birth announcement, that the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The Hawaiian official merely said that they have a certificate on file for Obama, but I don't think he said which type; there are two. One certifies that the person was born in Hawaii, the other merely registers the fact of the birth, wherever it occurred.
And a lot of the proof is beyond conjecture and speculation. Obama, for instance, traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. You don't get one of those unless you're an indonesian citizen, which also means that you've renounced US citizenship.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

RE: lawsuit filed re:The

Pt314 · Senior Member

RE: lawsuit filed re:Obama citizenship

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

We were living in England when our older son was born, he is a US citizen from birth, so I know that procedure. An LDS member of the US Consulate helped us thru those ropes. But it appears that upon Obama's reported birth in Kenya, his mother never did what was necessary for him to be a US citizen.

It is also claimed that when Obama's mother was remarried, she moved to Indonesia with her new husband and renounced her and Barack's U.S. citizenship. The basis for this claim is the fact that Obama was enrolled in school for four years in Indonesia, and the government required (during the time Obama was there) that one had to be a citizen of Indonesia and renounce citizenship in other countries in order to attend public school.

Obama will not release his medical records or his records from Occidental College in California nor from Harvard College. It is speculated that he will not release these records because they indicate he is not a citizen and may, in fact, have applied for some type of U.S. government aid for foreign students.

It seems the arrogance of his refusing to produce certain documents that could satisfy doubt about his citizenship continues to add fuel to this fire.

historian · Senior Member

Pt,

As I undestand the laws in place when O was born, the American citizen parent had to have spent five years in the US after age 16. Since she was 17 when he was born, that makes her too young to have granted citizenship.

Also, O travelled to Pakistan in the early 80s, when they didn't allow American citizens in their country, and reportedly he travelled on an Indonesian passport.

Another case states that because O senior was a Kenyan/British subject when the boy was born, then he became a dual citizen, and perhaps that disqualifies him.

A copy of his Hawaiian certificate of live birth (also issued to foreign born children then) would cost ten or twelve dollars. I've heard reports that he's spent close to or more than a million dollars in legal fees, getting the many cases about this squashed. While I can't prove the legal fees, I can cite at least 25 cases in various areas brought about this. It's obvious that can't be cheap.

If any of this is true, then not only do we have someone possibly lacking loyalty to our country, but we also have someone subject to foreign blackmail where they hold documents that he doesn't want seen.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

"A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief. "

""As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter."

""Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office an impostor," Easterling's statement said. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837

"Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration."

""I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq."

"I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States," he told Taitz. "I believe the case you are filing could very well determine if we are in fact a Constitutional Republic or a nation of mob rule. I would be honored to be a part of your efforts." "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89941

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

This time it's a retired major general. "I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a petition for a declaratory judgement (sic) that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall)," he wrote.

The general also sstated that if recalled, he would be "unable to follow any orders given by a constitutionally unqualified commander in chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason,"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90125

It should not be that difficult for the president just put his credentials out there and stop all the speculation and distrust of him and his administration. The arrogant refusal to do so just aggravates the situation and leads to further distrust of Obama and those in Congress and the judiciary who contribute to the cover-up.

In an earlier post I stated to the effect that our country is becoming a dictatorship. This fiasco furthers my claim. The dictators, however, are not really Obama and Co., but the latter-day gadiantons who manuvered Obama into the White House. They now continually "thumb their noses" at the US Constitution as they march us deeper into a dictatorship.