Although there have been perhaps half a dozen lawsuits filed in various states around the country alleging that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, the one that has received the most publicity is Berg v Obama. Phil Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the election. He had filed that request on Friday, October 31. Justice Souter denied the request on Monday, November 3. Berg v Obama, 08A391. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
“Nov 4 2008: In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants “are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari” by Dec. 1.”
Links to additional media:
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/berg_philip
If one of Philip Berg’s goals was to bring attention to the subject matter, he certainly has succeeded.
This isn’t about Barack Obama, this is about our constitution which we lost in Dallas on November 22 1963.
Rent “The Good Shepherd” and watch it.
If we are to survive as a free republic/democracy, we must rid ourselves of the forces that are allowed to operate in secrecy and outside the rule of law.
What is going on with our Country?? How is Obama Going be the US president. Its not legal and no one is doing anything about it. How can we stop this and where do I go?? We all need to do something!
Congress has the authority to refuse to count electoral votes for candidates who don’t meet the constitutional qualifications. This was settled in 1872, when Congress refused to count the electoral votes that had been cast for Horace Greeley. Anyone who feels he or she has evidence that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications should communicate with members of Congress.
In a similar matter, Congress is the body responsible for refusing to seat anyone as a member of Congress if there is evidence that the person was not actually elected. Courts and states are not in charge.
has Berg decided to refile and and have it submitted to another scotus judge to hear his emergency injunction application as of right under scotus rules?
Phil Berg LOL
Why waste the court’s time with this nonsense
Hold on; that’s not the whole story. Justice Souter denied the stay of the election, but he is also REQUIRING Obama to respond to Berg’s allegations. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80072
See the ancient Writ of Quo Warranto (challenging the ability of a person to hold a public office) — now just one more form of Civil Action.
The Congress is the judge ONLY of the elections for its own members (for historical reasons going back to the 1500s – 1600s regarding the efforts of the British monarchs to directly control who got elected in the British House of Commons). Art. I, Sec. 5, para. 1.
ALL other election stuff can go (and does go) to the Supremes.
The Supremes may obviously want to see a FACTUAL record develop in the lower courts (i.e. Berg’s alleged evidence being tested and re-tested) — things may very quickly escalate as in Bush v. Gore in Nov-Dec 2000.
For at least some of the Supremes the Constitution actually means something — unlike the New Age EVIL powermad everything goes President = Emperor type folks (i.e. wannabee TYRANTS) — regardless of Constitutions, laws and treaties — i.e. everything to reduce tyranny since Magna Charta in 1215.
Stay tuned.
Uh, Randy, the Constitution was lost far earlier than Dealey Plaza. Try 1913, for example, when the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and Federal Reserve Act were all enacted.
Amending the Constitution, as legally allowed under the Constitution, does not make it lost.
“Justice Souter denied the stay of the election, but he is also REQUIRING Obama to respond to Berg’s allegations.”
WRONG. Don’t post what you don’t understand. Supreme Court Rule 15(3) (look it up) automatically sets a 30-day deadline for the appelle(s) to file a brief responding to the application for writ of certiorari. What Obama, DNC and FEC will be responding to on December 1 is the suggestion that the Supreme Court should issue a writ — that is, whether the Court should even hear the case. NO EVIDENCE WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN — the ONLY question before the court at this time is whether the court should grant certiorari.
Do some research — at least look it up on Wiki — and learn something first hand before you spout nonsense. Don’t rely on Internet rumors and dubious characterizations by sheeple who don’t have any understanding of the law or the legal process.
This is a whitewash… I feel nothing will come of Berg v Obama. Like 10.GeorgetownJD says, also I note lack of critique from the peers of Berg, to highlight to the everyone that Berg took the obvious wrong route, to delay and open his arguement to dismantle.
I think it was all engineered to:
1. Highlight an obvious Constitutional issue at risk
2. To create air of suspicion about Obama that is obvious
3. To divide us
Just be aware, this is all part of THE PLAN.
David Zucker,
What about the REAL plan? Why won’t Obama release his birth certificate and numerous other records?
Look at the news. Souter wants to return to NH as a big judge. The transition team tech guy clerked for Soter and Justice Brennan. Now, I am sure that Souter wouldn’t trade his ethics for a nice job back in NH???? Sounds too cozy.
Thanks for the advice #10.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0405/ijde/messitte.htm
As Justice Byron White once remarked, this is “not as hard as it might sound.” It has been estimated that
– more than 60 percent of the paid cert cases and
– more than 90 percent of the in forma pauperis
cert cases turn out to be “utterly without merit for review purposes.”
..The cases the justices do decide to hear each year, those in which it grants certiorari, invariably result in decisions that have a profound impact on America and, for that reason, are followed by the public with the greatest interest.
more than 60 percent is a good odd to bet.
I wish there was a way to penalize Berg for his ongoing frivoulous lawsuits.
Re Obama being born in Kenya:
If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus, they are confirming the document. AND they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence†– and concluded that the stuff was absurd.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions†about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen†are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. †See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive†any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault†copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.†The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth†line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. 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: “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.†In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue†and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.â€
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.â€
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth†line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.â€
smrstrauss: It’s clear that this judge in Ohio is either:
1. A Marxist
2. An islamofascist
3. A member of the Weather Underground
4. A member of Reverend Wright’s congregation
Or perhaps all of the above!
By the way, as a side note, many historians believe that Chester Arthur was born in Canada, where his parents worked a farm at the time of his birth. They later moved to Vermont, where he was raised. It didn’t stop him from serving out his exceptionally mediocre presidency.
RE: Response to Post No. 16 (smrstrauss)
Your post contains lengthy verbiage, but is without overall legal merit. Your legal arguments are for the most part inaccurate and/or without legal foundation. The United States Supreme Court will grant Cert…book it! A Lawyer
It is clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a response date on the Writ of Certiorari was not specifically addressing the “standing issue”, but rather as a matter of judicial discretion based upon a “compelling reason” in that the United States provides “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President…” Accordingly, the Writ of Certiorari will likely be granted and President-elect Obama will be compelled by the United States Supreme Court at a future date to provide to the Court a vault copy of his original birth certificate.
Grant cert??? Not. Berg cannot even draft a petition that conforms to Supreme Court Rule 14. He doesn’t state the “questions presented for review” right up front, as required (and some Justices read only the first page and make their decision about cert based on the way the issue is framed), he omits the list of all parties, he exceeds the page limit set by Rule 33 (many judges stop reading when the page limit is reached), omits the corporate disclsoure statement required by Rule 29, his petition is missing a Table of Contents and Table of Cited Authorities (required if the brief is more than 5 pages), he never state the statutory basis for jurisdiction, and he rambles on and on about the alleged facts for 21 freakin’ pages and doesn’t begin to address the factors listed in Rule 10. Oh, and he wastes a couple of trees with a stupid promissory estoppel argument (but never mind, because that argument comes after he has exceeded the page limit so no Justice is going to read it anyway).
In short, this petition probably won’t even make it on the distribution list for conference. Put money on denial of cert, sometime after the January 9 or 16 conference.
TRS, if you are a lawyer, you should know that even if the Supreme Court grants cert, the only issue the court will look at is whether Berg has standing to pursue his lawsuit. If SCOTUS grants cert (highly unlikely), and if SCOTUS then rules that Berg does have standing and that the Eastern District has jurisdiction (also highly unlikely), the case will simply be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
The dismissal of Berg’s lawsuit was based upon lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction. The merits of Berg’s claims, if any, did not enter into the decision. The only question before SCOTUS is whether Berg’s lawsuit should be allowed to proceed in the Eastern District.
It also should be pointed out that no court can order Obama to produce the “vault copy” of his birth certificate, because that document is not in Obama’s control. A court would have to order the appropriate agency in Hawaii to produce that document.
TRS, you are laboring under the misimpression that cert has been granted. It hasn’t. First, Justice Souter may not act unilaterally. If you are indeed a lawyer, then you are familiar with the Rule of Four. And you also would know the process a petition goes through — distribution, cert pool, cert memo, conference, the announcement on Mondays of the Orders List — before cert is granted or denied.
Here is how the docket would appear if certiorari had been granted:
No. 08-6
Title:
District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, et al., Petitioners
v.
William G. Osborne
Docketed: July 1, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (06-35875)
Decision Date: April 2, 2008
Questions Presented
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 27 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2008)
Jul 10 2008 Waiver of right of respondent William G. Osborne to respond filed.
Jul 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2008.
Jul 25 2008 Response Requested . (Due August 25, 2008)
Aug 7 2008 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 24, 2008.
Sep 24 2008 Brief of respondent William G. Osborne in opposition filed.
Oct 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 31, 2008.
Oct 17 2008 Reply of petitioners District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 3 2008 Petition GRANTED.
Note that when cdert has been granted, the docket reflects such in ALL CAPS. Now, go to the docket for Berg’s case, 08-570. Where do you see “Petition GRANTED”?
If Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Alan Keyes and all of the others making these claims are lying, and this could possibly destroy Barack’s career, and effectively end the Democratic Party, why have the DNC and the Obama Camp not sued them for libel?
I know if these “vicious rumors” were being published and pursued about and against me, and I had nothing to hide in a court of law I would have sued for libel the day these suits were presented.
Instead the DNC and Obama have decided to file injunctions and attempt to have these suits tossed on technicalities to avoid having to prove the unprovable which would ultimately lead to the absolute destruction of the Democratic Party and the “Hope” of changing the course of this country forever.
What someone alleges in a lawsuit enjoys immunity from defamation, and Berg, Martin and Keyes know this. I think that Obama and the DNC are taking the right approach in just ignoring the suits that don’t involve them directly (most of the cases filed in the state courts have named the local secretary of state as the defendant), and in the action(s) brought directly against them the best course is simply to file a motion to dismiss, as they did in Berg’s case.
Virtually every lawsuit is “tested” by the defendant via a motion to dismiss, so there is nothing unusual about taking this tack. It actually is very good strategy. Since every lawyer first tries to get a case against his client dismissed, it would probably be malpractice to fail to file a motion to dismiss.
Dismissal for lack of standing or failure to state a claim may seem, to nonlawyers, to be a “technicality,” but it is a substantive ruling. It’s a determination that the suit does not have a legal basis (in contrast to a factual resolution), so there is no need to allow the case to go any further and waste limited judicial resources.