Posted on 01/11/2009 9:18:59 AM PST by FreeManN
I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States.
But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys.
First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing!
And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes!
There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!
FYI and the next time someone asks ‘what law firms?’ and/or for those who can’t figure out that lawyers are much more expensive than a ~$12 birth certificate:
Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll - big old philly law firm
Sandler Reiff and Young - DNC
Perkins Coie - Obama for America
I hadn’t even contemplated what would happen if bo’s allies bomb the Supreme Court and kill all the Justices.
I guess the only way to restore order would be for the Military to take over the Government and then we are just another Pakistan.
How much does it cost to file a motion to dismiss as this has been the only legal action that has been taken on Obama's behalf regarding the BC controversy
Ask those 3 law firms to give you an estimate if you really want to know a more exact figure.
Well I can't speak for others, but I look in on sites like this because I find most of your arguements hilarious. I mean come on! When lead articles contain chestnuts like "...the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!" then how can you not just shake your heads in amazement at the sheer bloody lunacy of what's being put out there? The Supreme Court has the power to cancel an election's results? What clause of the Constitution did they misread in order to come up with that?
None of these post-election cases have been dismissed for lack of standing in the lower courts. The pre-election cases (against McCain) were, because there was no harm incurred before that point.
The SCOTUS simply has not granted cert to any of these petitions to date, which I would interpret as a) they see no reason to interpret the term "natural born citizen" as anything other than a citizen born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship status of the parent(s); b) there has been no credible proof presented to question the State of Hawaii's Certification of Live Birth; c) SCOTUS does not agree with the argument that the various SOS's, or any other entity, are required by law to demand an original birth certificate as a requirement for certification of a candidate. IOW, the SOS's, and the Dem Party are simply performing a rubber-stamp operation, as they've done with every other election in our history. To change the rules now would be discriminatory.
Berg's case has always seemed to me the most frivolous of all -- a veritable "kitchen-sink" of unproved assertions. (It may have been pared down in the meantime, but I have followed it for a while.) In addition, he didn't follow the preferred route to the SCOTUS -- bypassing the lower state court to file at the state Supreme Court level -- which has dragged the case out for months, probably intentionally.
I have no idea where Obama was born. But if he’s not a “natural born citizen” then according to the Constitution he’s ineligible to assume the presidency. Other than that, I don’t have a whole lot to add to the conversation at this time.
Will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS does with it. If they take the case and discover that he’s not a natural born citizen then they should declare him ineligible and call for a new election. If they discover that he’s not a natural born citizen but do nothing, then it’s up to We the People. If he proves to the court’s satisfaction that he is a natural born citizen then that’s the end of it.
Hmm let me think.... not sure but probably not nearly as much as it costs to pay hundreds of damage control bloggers to work round the clock, like you. Even though you probably make less than minimum wage it allows you to sit on your *ss all day and look like a bo brown noser. I guess you just leave birth certificate in the search box and run when you see it. Pathetic. Of course zer0 has unlimited funds from the likes of Soro's and all of his unnamed foreign contributors. Enough of your boring talking points. run on back to Axelrod and report that you had an unsuccessful day on FR and that you were spotted right away.
MISSING-HIDDEN DOCUMENTS:
Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA — Not Released (1 version hidden in Hawaii, Original found in Kenya)
Certificate of Live Birth — Released - Proven Counterfeit (www.ObamaFiles.com)
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Not Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released - Proven Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, Not Signed)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
FReeper:
Drew68
Signup 2001-04-19
Messages 244 articles, 9858 replies
Highly unlikely that he works for Axlerod.
What is most amusing is how astonishing ignorant the obots are.
De88 for example states that Berg filed in State Court. He filed in Federal Court.
bo’s enire team is full of utter fools who have no idea how ignorant they are.
I keep seeing this “kitchen sink” criticism of the Berg & Taitz cases. Of course, the threw the kitchen sink at bo. That’s what any good lawyer does. It is malpractice to do otherwise. If you can legitimately make a claim in good faith, you do so. Berg did. Taitz did. Donofrio limited his claim to NBC and as a result, Donofrio’s case was dismissed.
Think about it in terms of a criminal prosecution. If you think a defendant is guilty of 10 charges of fraud, you don’t limit your case to the one case of fraud that you consider strongest. You don’t know what might happen in discovery, so you do your due diligence and press on with all your claims like Berg and Taitz did.
Thanks Jim. I can assure you I don't work for Axlerod. I work on Sikorsky H-60 helicopters for the United States Navy.
Great! Thanks!
Half of the vote counted may have been tallied for him, but half of the population did not vote for him when less than half of the population voted.
There are tapes of bo campaigning with Cousin Odinga in Kenya back in 2006, where bo agrees with Odinga’s anti-American sentiments and says the American national anthem is a racist, violent war song and must be replaced with something passive, peaceful and wholly secular. This or a bc issue is what I think Bill and Hillary may have on bo.
MO believes that the Clinton Global Initiative is responsible for tribal violence and deaths in Africa. She detests Hillary yet he quickly appointed Hill to SOS? Bill Clinton made that cute little remark that if bo was ELLIGIBLE under our CONSTITUTION then he had no problem with his candidacy. Makes me pause and think.
What about bo's presence at a 2003 dinner where Palestinian Rhashid Khalidi was honored, amongst frequent calls for the immediate destruction of the state of Israel. bo and mo attended this hatefest, smiling throughout, with of Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers. The LA times has these tapes, admitted they have them, refuses to release them. Why?
It's articles like this one below that make me not trust this man. They always say you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their friends;
Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U. Letter From Morningside By SOL STERN and FRED SIEGEL, Special to the Sun | February 4, 2005
You might think that Columbia University would be on its best academic behavior on the issue of the Middle East conflict these days. After all, several professors in the Department of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures, known as MEALAC, are credibly accused of anti-Semitism and intimidating pro-Israel students. The university's president, Lee Bollinger, has appointed a committee to look into the charges. But even with the media spotlight on, Columbia apparently can't help itself.
Last Monday night we attended a university panel on the Middle East conflict titled "One State or Two? Alternative Proposals for Middle East Peace." Even the panel's title was a giveaway that we were in for more anti-Israel bias on campus. The "one state" solution is a euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state - a trope of the most extreme rejectionist elements within the Palestinian movement and their allies in Syria and Iran. Terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah want to create an Islamic Republic in place of Israel.
A few splinter Marxist groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, founded by George Habash, offer the Jews a solution that's far more "progressive." They murder innocents merely to replace Israel with a "secular democratic" Palestine. The scene at Columbia, with Spartacists handing out literature outside the packed auditorium and proponents of Palestinian military victory in the vast majority, was wildly at odds with the hopeful development on the ground, where Messrs. Sharon and Abbas are now scheduled to meet. One of the panelists was Mark Cohen, a Princeton historian of medieval Islam.
He gave a measured scholarly presentation on the subject of Arab Muslim antisemitism, insisting that attacks on Jews in the Koran had little to do with hostility to Jews. It's a debatable proposition. But professor Cohen never even engaged the issue at hand. He largely served as a prop for the ranting to follow. Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia professor whose recent book argues that Yasser Arafat was right to reject the best peace deal he had ever been offered, opening the way to four years of bloodshed, presented a tendentious argument for a one-state solution that strained to stay within the bounds of reasoned discourse. Then Joseph Massad took the floor, and the floodgates of hatred opened wide.
Mr. Massad is one of the MEALAC professors accused of demanding of one Israeli student, "How many Palestinians did you kill today?" At the forum, he used the phrase "racist Israeli state" more than two dozen times. He used seemingly universalist language of anti-racism to drive a fascist argument. Mr. Massad is so extreme that he argued that Arafat was in effect an Israeli collaborator for even talking about compromise. Whatever can be said of this rant, its "academic" content was hard to discern. But to judge by the applause he received, Mr. Massad was the star of the evening.
Obviously, Mr. Massad, an acolyte of the dear departed George Habash, isn't worried about President Bollinger's panel, which includes three professors who have signed petitions demanding that all universities divest from Israel. The final act of hatred came from the Israeli quisling "historian" Ilan Pappe, who has stated openly that his so-called scholarly work is an attempt to create a counter narrative to official Zionist historiography and to undermine the international legitimacy of the state of Israel.
He bizarrely insisted that the destruction of Israel would pave the way for enhanced rights for women, and the feminist students in the audience cheered. Instead of providing an alternative to hatred and extremism from both sides, this panel was a hate-fest masquerading as academic discourse. And this was no aberration attributable only to one misguided student group.
In addition to Qanun, a Columbia Law School student group, the panel was cosponsored by the university chaplain, the Student Senate, and two of Columbia's most prestigious academic affiliates: the Middle East Institute, headed by professor Khalidi, and the School of International and Public Affairs. SIPA's dean, Lisa Anderson, was appointed by Mr. Bollinger to the committee looking into the charges against professor Massad - whose dissertation adviser she was.
Coming away from Monday night's hate panel and then looking at this tangled web of conflicts of interest within the university, we realized that the issue of misconduct in the classroom by one or two professors, important though it is, is dwarfed by a more fundamental question: How did a great institution of higher learning allow itself to be transformed into a platform for vicious political propaganda and hate speech directed against one country, Israel?
Surely one crucial moment in this transformation was Columbia's decision to raise $4 million - including a contribution from the United Arab Emirates - to create the Edward Said endowed chair in Arab studies, and then to give the prize to professor Khalidi. We don't doubt that Mr. Khalidi has academic credentials. Compared to professors Massad and Pappe, he is a model of decorum and moderation. But when Columbia academic officials made this choice they knew they were getting a Palestinian political activist.
From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Later he served on the PLO "guidance committee" at the Madrid peace conference. In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi's wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia's SIPA, working under Dean Anderson.
In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.
The message sent by Columbia University officials by this choice was that they were determined to honor the memory of Edward Said by continuing to have radical Palestinian activism on campus. That's what they now have in spades. The question is whether it's now possible within the university's public space to even make an argument for the only democratic country in the Middle East.
bo called Midwesterners bitter gun-and-religion-clingers apathetic to all those who are not like them. Yet he thinks nothing of sitting through a dinner where radicals spout hate because these are the same Hyde Park Chicago pseudo-intellectual radicals who think there’s nothing wrong with Bernadine Dorhn and William Ayers running daycare centers or teaching in universities.
Bad potato. But it isn’t going to be solved by the likes of Berg. He is grasping at straws, and likely making a good sum of cash while doing so.
<”there has been no credible proof presented to question the State of Hawaii’s Certification of Live Birth”;>
Exactly! Which is why this will never end up going anywhere. You show the proof or evidence that something was done, then show harm.
Berg has tried to suggest there was harm without evidence something being done.
BTTT for 0bama law firm info.
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.