Globe Magazine: Obama African Birth Certificate! Barack Obama's presidency is illegal!

Do you only trust news that you get from supermarket checkout lines?

What news source/s do you trust?

God and Jesus both could stand in front of you personally and tell you ZERO is a fraud and you’d still defend the liar in chief. I think you’d need a lifetime supply of Depends if ZERO was removed from office. You’ve already lived a lifetime worth of DEFENDS for the traitor here on Fr. I’m not playing ball with u either.

The National Enquirer is where the marxists go to launder stories that are true.

The Globe is where they go to float stories that are phony, for various reasons.

Very little difference in editorial standards between the two, as far as I can see. They are both owned by the same parent corporation, American Media, Inc.

"What else can be done?"

At this particular moment in time...

1. Support / hope for /pray for LTC Lakin. Financially, if possible. The chances of him being sucessfull may not be high, but there's still the chance.

2. Support / hope for /pray for Aty Apuzzo and his clients as they will undoubtabley submit their cases to SCOTUS soon. Will SCOTUS continue to evade the issue?

Lastly, there are more and more congressional candidates (both at the state level as well as federal) that have openly stated that if elected, they will officially raise the issue and demand answers. Find them, and support them.

That's what can be done in 2010.

What news source/s do you trust?

These are some but not all of the news sources that I trust. I do not trust any news that I read in the supermarket isle although they may get things right once in a while.
Human Events
National Review
brietbart.com
American Spectator

Thanks for the image!! Destination: Hard drive.

Oh really? ... Mine came from the Bank Of Nigeria.

“That looks remarkably like the Certified Copy I got from the Bank of Kenya proving I’m entitled to the $15 million they’ve been holding in my name, and which I can claim for a small processing fee.”

You were robbed, I got mine from Nigeria. They said it would be here in a week!!

Tell it to the judge(s)! The Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court did not agree with you as they rejected hearing Ankeny on appeal.

“Jones v Obama” was just dimissed for lack of standing on July 20th. That was the final original jurisdiction birther civil suit to be heard.

That makes the scorecard Obama: 71/Birthers: O in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. There are still a few stray appeals pending.

Get back to me if you guys ever win one. In fact, get back to me if you ever find a plaintiff who might be ruled to have standing to sue. There are some seriously competent conservative/libertarian constitutional law firms in this country who take on legitimate issues of concerns to conservatives every single day and argue those issues all the way to the Supreme Court. I’m talking about The Center for Individual Rights, the Washington Legal Foundation, The American Center for Law and Justice, the Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, The Institute for Justice, the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Not one of those many conservative legal entities with real constitutional law experience has gone anywhere near any birther lawsuit. Why is that?

There are no “merits” to birther drivel.

“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff. “–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009
Judge Land is a former Republican Georgia state Senator from Columbus appointed to the federal judiciary by George W. Bush

I’ll let a typical birther lawsuit speak for itself:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 10-1075-GAF (PJWx) Date July 20, 2010
Title Ruth Jones v. Barack Hussein Obama II et al

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
I.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ruth Jones (“Plaintiff”), acting “in pro se,” has sued defendant President Barack H. Obama (the “President”) for injunctive and declaratory relief. (Docket No. 1.) Her suit asserts that the President’s citizenship is undetermined and that certain actions he has taken in office violate the Constitution and constitute treason. Plaintiff’s first set of citizenship-related claims cite Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution [1] (Compl. ¶ 3.), and contend that the President has failed to provide “absolute” proof of his citizenship status, such as his certified birth certificate. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 9, 11, 18.) Plaintiff’s second set of claims turns on allegations that the President violated the Constitution and committed treason when he issued Amended Executive Order No. 12425 [2], chaired a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations (“UN”), and accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. (Id. ¶ 1.)

According to Plaintiff, the President executed Amended Executive Order No. 12425 on September 16, 2009. (Id. ¶ 68b.) Pursuant to the Amended Executive Order, the President gave INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, immunity from
government searches, “free custom[s] duties and freedom from IRS taxes,” property-tax
exemptions, and exemption from the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). (Id.
¶¶ 75, 77.) The Executive Order also allegedly placed the Plaintiff under “the surveillance and jurisdiction of the INTERPOL and the International government.” (Id. ¶ 78.)

On September 23, 2009, approximately one week after issuing Amended Executive Order No. 12425 (id. ¶ 68c.), the President allegedly served as chair of the UN General Assembly. (Id. ¶ 79.) On that occasion, he directed the General Assembly to “move the World in a new direction,” and thus purportedly took “a step taking the United States in the New World Order,” in violation of the Constitution. (Id. ¶¶ 93-94.)

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that on October 9, 2009, the President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize and the “money which accompanied it.” (Id. ¶¶ 68d, 79, 98.) Because this prize was issued by the “Nobel Peace Committee from Norway” (id. ¶ 98.), the President allegedly violated the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.3 (Id. ¶ 96.)

To redress the two sets of alleged constitutional violations, Plaintiff seeks various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief. First, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the President to demonstrate that he is constitutionally eligible. (Compl. ¶ 57.) Second, if the President does not demonstrate his constitutional qualifications, Plaintiff contends this Court should issue “an injunction to remove [him] by force if necessary from the office of the presidency,” bar him from the White House, and prohibit him from holding any federal office. (Id. ¶ 57; Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 5-6.)

Third, Plaintiff seeks a declaration stating: (1) Amended Executive Order No. 12425 is unconstitutional; (2) the President is guilty of treason; and (3) the President’s inauguration is null and void; and (4) all of his other official acts will be “null and void” upon the inauguration of a new president. (Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 4, 7-8, 10, 13.)

The President moves to dismiss the case and argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue because she has not demonstrated the requisite concrete and particularized injury-infact.

The Court agrees, GRANTS the motion, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims.

II.
DISCUSSION
A. RULE 12(B)(1) AND STANDING

Standing is an essential element of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975), and is properly raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989); see also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). Article III standing, like other bases of jurisdiction, generally must be present when the lawsuit is filed. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 570 n.5 (1992) (plurality opinion).

To demonstrate standing under Article III of the Constitution, the plaintiff must satisfy three elements. First, the plaintiff must allege that she has suffered an “injury in fact,” i.e., the invasion of a legally protected interest. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Second, “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Id. And third, “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Id. at 561. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving standing. Id.; cf. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

B. APPLICATION

Plaintiff’s complaint and opposition to the present motion demonstrate that she has not satisfied the first element of the Lujan standing analysis—that is, she has not alleged a legally-cognizable injury in fact. To support an injury based on the President’s alleged foreign citizenship, Plaintiff claims that the President has “violated the right she has to a president who is a ‘natural born citizen’ and whose allegiance is solely to that of the United States”; she contends that the United States is now “vulnerable to a plethora of threats from its enemies because this Defendant has shown no proof of his…sole loyalty….” (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25.) Because the President has not proven his citizenship, “the unrest of all the citizens grows more intense,” and Plaintiff “no longer has in operation a United States under the protection and control” of the Constitution. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 41a; see also Not. Opp. at 2; Opp. at 4.) Even assuming the truth of these fanciful speculations, controlling case law teaches that they do not give rise to the kind of injury that establishes standing to sue in federal court. For example, in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974), the Supreme Court stated that “the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance…is an abstract injury,” and “standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of [that] kind…held in common by all members of the public.” 418 U.S. at 217, 220. Multiple courts have considered the citizenship issue presented in this case and have held that “the grievance of a citizen in the alleged violation of the natural born citizen clause is too generalized” to support an injury-in-fact. Barnett v. Obama, — F.
Supp. 2d —-, 2009 WL 3861788, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (citing Hollander v.
McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D.
Pa. 2008)).

In support of her claim that she suffered injury caused by the President’s presiding as UN General Assembly chair, Plaintiff states that in taking such action, the President “evidenced his non legitimate Presidency and his allegiance to those of foreign countries at the expense of the Plaintiff’s country. This was giving aid and comfort to the enemy…an outward sign to the world his allegiance is…to the United Nations….” (Opp. at 8.) Clearly, the supposed harm to Plaintiff is an abstract and generalized injury that would be common to all American citizens; it is therefore insufficient to support standing under Schlesinger and Lujan.

As a basis for claiming injury arising from the President’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Plaintiff contends that the acceptance “violates the right Plaintiff has under the Constitution to have a President who is free from accepting gifts, awards, and money from foreign countries.” (Compl. ¶¶ 98, 99.) Plaintiff claims she is “constantly fearful because…in her Country the leader…follows his own laws, not those of the Supreme Law of the United States.” (Id. ¶ 102; see also Opp. at 8 (“[A]cts of allegiance to the foreign countries made the Plaintiff fearful for her safety and the coming Marshall Law [sic]…to take over the people”).)

Once again, the generalized and abstract nature of Plaintiff’s claim under the Emoluments Clause of Article I will not support standing in this matter. See Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 217, 220. Plaintiff’s purported fear of future harm is inadequate to support injury-in-fact because the threat of harm is not “immediate,” and she has not specified, with any precision, the “irreparable injury” she will personally suffer based on the purported Emoluments Clause violation. Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Eggar v. City of Livingston, 40 F.3d 312, 317 n.10 (9th Cir. 1994); Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1252 (9th Cir. 1990) (“claims predicated upon…‘speculative contingencies afford no basis for finding the existence of a continuing controversy as required by article III.’”) (citing Lee v. Schmidt-Wenzel, 766 F.2d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Finally, to support an injury based on Amended Executive Order No. 12425 and the intervention of INTERPOL, Plaintiff claims she is “afraid to [g]o to bed at night. There has been an increase in the amount of plane activity over the Los Angeles skies from about 2-5 am. The Plaintiff is fearful her country will be taken over as a result of [the] immunities and privileges given to the INTERPOL.” (Compl. ¶ 85.)

Again, other than the vague reference to supposed increase in plane activity during the night—which is not even described as threatening in nature—Plaintiff does not indicate any personal harm that stems from INTERPOL’s presence in the United States. To the extent the Amended Executive Order “violated and circumvented the rights the Plaintiff has to be under the control and protection of the U.S. Constitution…not INTERPOL” (Id. ¶ 41c; see also id. ¶¶ 41k-m.), or generally “took away [Plaintiff’s] right to face her perpetrators in criminal court” (Opp. at 2, 7.), it would apply equally to all citizens, and thus injure only the “generalized interest of all citizens” described in Schlesinger. 418 U.S. at 217.

In her opposition, Plaintiff effectively concedes that the supposed INTERPOL related harms do not adequately support an injury-in-fact. She argues that Amended Executive Order No. 12425 “took away the rights of the courts to hear her case for criminal activity where she could be taken to international court” (Opp. at 2 (emphasis added).) and states she is now “potentially allowed to be taken to an international court without the state or federal courts having a say over her protection.” (Opp. at 7 (emphasis added).) But absent any contention or evidence that Plaintiff violated any laws,[4] or that these proceedings are imminently threatened, the claims “raise wholly speculative concerns that call for a type of purely advisory opinion” prohibited by Article III. Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 106-07, 110-11 (1983)). [5]

III.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with the reasoning expressed in greater detail above, the Court GRANTS the President’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing, and the action is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

In a year I have had a general, government minister, and scientist with my last name all die in plane crashes in Nigeria. I am amazed at how many Italians are still left in Africa, but I’m also concerned about the apparent plot to kill them all. I sent a letter to the Nigeria Embassy in DC asking them to investigate the plot against my family. No response, yet. Letting my $59 million gather interest.

None of them heard on the merits. No affirmation that your usurper boy Barry is NBC. The truth will prevail, ultimately.

bfl

Thanks for the reply.

"Do you only trust news that you get from supermarket checkout lines?"

Isn't that where you buy your copy of Time and Newsweak?

?

If a Republican senator had any guts at all he would bring this up in the congress with BOzo present and have the fake prez give a yes or no then and there swearing to the bible.

“Are Americans not to care because his followers (anti-American) don’t give a flip?”

I did not say Americans should do nothing. I merely agreed with the previous poster that many Ameicans could care less about citizenship.
I am frustrated at how many Americans do not want to push back on incrementalism. As a previous teacher, I witnessed the history books moving from telling of the exceptionalism of America to all things bad are the result of American policies.
The push back to the attitude of many of our youth not understanding history and government should have occurred 20 years ago.
I say fight back, but realize the fight is not just on investigating Obama’s citizenship, but analyzing why we got to this point as a society.

Congressman Nathan Deal from Georgia tried, but what almost immediately put under investigation for ethics “violations.”

“Ask one of the JournOlists. They know. /complete sarcasm”

I would be interesting to see their emails relating to Obama’s citizenship.