Posted on 11/07/2008 6:47:37 PM PST by mnehring
What did they know and when did they know it?
bump
That is right. I am not a lawyer (at least not yet) but I think the principle argument is that one cannot have general standing. However, the court has made an exception to this for taxpayer standing for violation of the establishment clause and I cannot see why something this serious cannot also serve as such an exception of generalized standing.
U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS
bump
Again, it is being under reported and over looked that the DNC is a filing also. We have been focused on Obama and that ruling alone. As you can see from the P.R. in post 604, the DNC need to respond too.
I think this will greatly impact on how this outcome will go. If you read what Berg is asking for a response on, you will see the DNC is going to be liable for this whole crises.
DNC - Admitted:
1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.
3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.
4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.
7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.
8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.
9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.
10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.
11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.
12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.
13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.
14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.
15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.
16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.
17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.
18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.
19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.
21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.
22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.
23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.
25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.
26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.
27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
If you’re a soon to be lawyer you might be interested in Edwin Vieira, Jr., opinion on this historical mess. He hold four degrees from Harvard including a law degree and has successfully argued or briefed cases in the SCOTUS leading to landmark decisions.
(It’s about 12 pages long if you make a copy of it.)
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84,htm
Are you also a Sax player? SATB?
Supreme Court is not going to take any substantive action to force production of Obama's birth records--Obama's lawyers will respond to the Petition for Cert and then the Court will deny Certiorari and that will be the end of Mr. Berg's action.
As I have said since June, an effective legal effort to force this issue in the Court system will take significant financial and legal resources. My litigator's estimate is that a fund of around $15mil is the range because you would need lawyers in probably 35 different states to manage actual court proceedings before 35 different judges to a state court resolution in the highest appellate court in each state. Among other things.
And it is going to take time to do--doubtful that there is sufficient time to interrupt the electoral college process at this point. Maybe.
No offense- but Ed Hale is not a source worthy of trust or respect. He’s a notorious tinfoil hat troublemaker.
But how about the filings against the DNC? If they have to respond, and their responses show they did not vet their candidate which the State ELECs relay on the parties to do, then what? Isn't that a backdoor admission that Obama is ineligible?
for later read
Scroll up to post 606.
I've been following this story partially for my 88 year old, retired attorney, father.
He's been saying since the beginning that the DNC needs to be charged. Berg definately has standing in filing grievance with them, and the others must be proven or disproven to carry this part of the case. Can't wait for him to read your post!
Again Woo Hoo!
You are being kind. Turns out he may be the source of the freep mails you sent me alerting me to those posts.
wow that is really cool... thanks
as far as sax, yeah I play alto, tenor and Bari along with a bunch of other instruments (flute/piccolo, clarinet, piano, guitar, trumpet, trombone, and a bunch of small stuff (panpipes, recorder, etc.) My primary instrument is the alto sax though....Unfortunately, however, I haven’t had much time to play anything since I came to law school.
I think this Berg-Obama’s BC thing is fascinating... Too bad the MSM is ignoring it and it probably won’t amount to much because of standing issues :(
Very complicated mess we’re in.
Somehow I can’t see the Court hearing this case- partially because Berg’s case goes off on some tangents that are superfluous- and also- I don’t know if they are willing to take on the risk of civil unrest that would surely result.
Am I correct in believing that Souter makes the decision whether or not the case should be heard?
If the court decides against hearing- the time left for action will be short.
For emphasis:
>>>He’s [father/attorney] been saying since the beginning that the DNC needs to be charged. Berg definately has standing in filing grievance with them, and the others must be proven or disproven to carry this part of the case. <<<
This filing were part of the initial Requests for Admissions filed on September 15, 2008.
The judge had no right to dismiss this and the news, what little that was covered, never said anything about this part. The State ELECs require the parties to do the initial vetting. So, as per their requirement, this is the correct path to take.
>>>Am I correct in believing that Souter makes the decision whether or not the case should be heard?
Sorry, no speako the legalo. :P
David?
I find that to be a sound summary of the reasonably possible scenarios.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.