Posted on 11/26/2008 12:07:09 PM PST by ckilmer
No. 08-570 Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: October 31, 2008 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (08-4340) Rule 11
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134 Lafayette Hill, PA 09867 Party name: Philip J. Berg Attorneys for Respondents: Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217 United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
winners never quit, quiters never win...you can go ahead and be a quitter..like McCain and quit on concervative and constitutional beliefs if you want.
From all the many lawsuits filed with Jumbo Mumbo legal "language", I feel this is the most compelling and logical to push forward:!!!
A more important lawsuit, however, may be the New Jersey case filed by Leo C. Donofrio. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ Donofrio is presently seeking emergency stay relief in the US Supreme Court, and what's intriguing about his action is a new legal theory not asserted (as yet) in any of the earlier cases. Donofrio argues that the "birth certificate" and "Indonesia" issues are irrelevant to Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Donofrio points out that Obama spokesmen have admitted (at least on websites) that his father was a Kenyan native at the time of Obama's birth, and was thereby a British subject (Kenya, at the time, was a British colony). Obama spokesmen acknowledge (on websites) that British law governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children, but the spokesmen also assert that Obama held dual Kenya/US citizenship at birth, and his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1981. The Obama assertion is that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that he has never renounced the US citizenship status that arises as a result of his Hawaiian birth.
Donofrio argues that these facts admitted by Obama spokesmen establish WITHOUT MORE that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Donofrio looks to the full clause in Article 2. Section 1. of the Constitution, which provides:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Donofrio asserts that the words ". . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ." have been overlooked in earlier lawsuits about Obama's eligibility, and that these words provide the key to a proper understanding of the eligibility issue. The Donofrio argument goes to original intent of the framers as expressed through these words-- he points out that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. So the Donofrio "original intent" argument goes like this:
The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.
Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.
I’ve seem all the articles and posts regarding the president elect’s birth certificate. I have one question (Freeper’s please help me out on this)... When I file documents with the Secretary of State here in California, the SoS’s office has to inspect the document before recording/filing it. Since candidates have to file documents with all 50 SoS’s, are they responsible to determine if the person is eligible?
For a moment, forget Obama and his birth certificate. What if my son filed papers to be elected president. In 2012, he’ll be 31. Would anyone stop him from running? And, if it’s not the Secretary of State, who does vet candidates?
1. The prohibition in the Consitution of non citizens being qualified for the POTUS was inserted at a time when the loyalty of many citizens was in question. Remember that a lot of Americans stood by the King all through the Revolutionary War.
2. You can bet the farm that some document expert is creating a legitimate BC right now in response to all of this.
3. Even if the issue is legitimate the congress will attempt to amend the Constitution immediately.
????
How about impeachment?
(Other than a long shot with dim majorities.)
How about seating number two while eligibility was in question?
(Would they come up with an "Office of the Acting President" seal for Biden or Pelosi?)
What about the Donofrio case on Dec 5th, going to conference? How does that play out and why are they doing it?
thanks...didn’t read this post when I posted my other :)
It’s hard to be amazed by anything going on in our government anymore, but the fact that the Federal Election Commission apparently has zero interest in this issue, comes close.”
The FEC was eliminated from Berg’s original lawsit.
It was determined that the DNC and it’s head- Howard Dean- had the responsibility to determine that they were fielding an eligible candidate.
The DNC is still a party to Berg’s lawsuit. Makes me wonder why Dean resigned??
If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship. “I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”
Most of all and in my ever so humble opinion, this should have never been an issue or taken this route. Seems the person running for president of the United States would know they had to be a natural born citizen and this was a given until the Democrats decided to implement a political “coup de etat”. With Democrats around, there can never be any loopholes with anything.”
You are a breath of fresh air for those of us who want the Constitution to be followed and those of us who think that NObama is a Hoax- from the jump.
IMO, NObama has known all along he is not eligible, and he has stonewalled any and every attempt to get this issue off the table.
Spending all this time and the money for lawyers- (none of which seem to have a single drop of red American blood on this topic) tells me even more that NObama knows he is a shill for the Dems.
Almost a BILLION dollars spent to get a job that pays $400K, and NObama must have known all along.
All this mess doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the topic of all the money coming to NObama from all over the world, in defiance of election campaign laws.
For a moment, forget Obama and his birth certificate. What if my son filed papers to be elected president. In 2012, he’ll be 31. Would anyone stop him from running? And, if it’s not the Secretary of State, who does vet candidates?””
The party that the candidate is representing is the proper source for the vetting process. In NObama’s case, that would have been the DNC and Howard Dean, as Chairman of same.
Any voter in any state should be able to challenge that Sec of State on the issue of eligibility.
Eldridge Cleaver ran for office in California some years back, and he got rejected by the Sec of State because it was proven that he was too young for the age minimum for the office. I think he also ran for USA President, but am not exactly sure on that.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania - 01/04/07)--Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, who prior hereto has filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others for the events of 9/11 and plans to re-file shortly] announced today that he was issuing a call for world leaders to arrest and try Bush and Cheney for the global crimes of 9/11/01.
"It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. "
Berg continued there is overwhelming evidence that:
"Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!"
We've certainly had our worries about Obama, but in an odd way it's comforting that he attracts the same sort of attention from conspiracy nuts that his predecessor does.
2. You can bet the farm that some document expert is creating a legitimate BC right now in response to all of this.”
Birth Certificates are numbered in chronological order.
How is that number going to be created out of thin air?
Birth Certificates show the nam of the attending doctor.
Birth Certificates show the name and place of the hospital.
Birth certificates show the exact time of the birth.
Some states also show a footprint, as my certificate does.
Nobama has referred to 2 different hospitals as his place of birth in Nawaii. Researchers have gone thru those records, and NEITHER hospital has any records of Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) EVER being in either hospital, much less than being there to give birth to Barry.
The “certificate” that NObama tried to pass off as his own on his website this spring had a very interesting piece of info.
On the lower left corner, there was a reference to the date of the form being shown.
That date was -——— 11/01.
Since NObama was born in 1961, someone explain to me the “certificate” showing a form date of 11/01.
IMO, the other reasons why NObama won’t show his college records is that they all show that he was a citizen of Indonesia, and that NObama was a Foreign Aid Student, which would have given him a big break in tuition. He also did not live in the dorms while at Columbia and admits he shared an apartment with a Pakistani drug dealer. (That’s just something we all did to go to college—right???)
Stanley Ann sure didn’t buy his college expenses, and neither did Daddy Obama. There is no record of NObama working to support himself as a student. So how did he get into and thru the years he spent “in college”???????
No birth certificate. No peace.
DONATE
Help out the real patriots; the guys on the front line:
A few links to a few folks connected to this effort:
Leo Donofrio:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
USJF:
http://www.usjf.net/
The American Independent Party (CA):
http://aipca.org
The Maryland Independent Party:
http://www.marylandindependentparty.org/
Alan Keyes:
http://www.alankeyes.com
America’s Independent Party:
http://www.selfgovernment.us
http://www.AIPNEWS.com
Donofrio had standing under NJ state law and was trying to force the NJ Secretary of State to follow NJ law and confirm that Obama was eligible. He was denied and so was the appeal to the NJ Supreme Court. You can read the appellate court's decision here.
But what can we expect if he wins at SCOTUS? Remand back to NJ or a demand for Obama's birth certificate?
Someone's gonna get either bumped off or paid off.
The grandmother died the day before the election. I found that rather odd especially when Obama never once left to go to Hawaii to a funeral?
Berg is only one.
There are four lawsuits and one of them is from Alan Keyes.
Not hardly a ‘conspiracy theorist’.
No, it would just mean that the lower court erred on the standing issue. They would then have to take up the basic case, which they might throw out on some other issue.
Times a wasting. It's less than 3 weeks until the electors meet to cast their votes. I just don't see how any case can make it to the Supreme Court, and then back to the court that can actually hear it based on it's merits, or lack thereof. Then they'd have to order the birth certificate produced, and then rule on eligibility from it. Or in some cases for the state official being sued to attempt to verify eligibility. That would require still more court involvement to break loose the BC.
Because it was not even purported to be a Certificate, but rather a "Certification". Current practice is to supply an extract of the information from the actual Certificate of Birth, rather than providing a copy of the original. Cheaper and faster (and more subject to forgery too). What was posted was (purported to be) just a "printout" of the data, or some of it, contained in the state's computer database. The information in that data base would have come from the original BC. Soon there won't be an original, as hospitals will file them electronically as well, with the data going directly into the state's database. Hopefully electronic signatures will accompany the electronic documents.
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.