Supreme Court to talk about Obama 3rd time Berg eligibility case set for conference Jan. 9

WND ^ | December 19, 2008

[Red Steel]

One of the original legal challenges to President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility for office to reach the U.S. Supreme Court now has been scheduled for a conference, a meeting at which the justices discuss its merits and whether to step into the fray.

Online schedules posted by the court show the case brought by attorney Philip J. Berg is set for a conference Jan. 9.

The case is one among several that already have reached the U.S. Supreme Court and address the issue of Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.

Berg has submitted several requests for injunctions, seeking the court's order to stay proceedings in the electoral process until his case is heard, but the request have been rejected.

His original claim, however, remains on track to be heard.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

-snip-

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the

[Albion Wilde]

Berg was an attorney for the truthers. Basically he was doing what attorneys do. I heard an interview with him a while back and he was asked if he believed what the Truthers did. His answer was basically “Not necessarily”.

By this logic, an attorney who does "what attorneys do" for Mafia clients should be regarded completely neutrally by the SCOTUS when deciding whether to waste their time on a case? Justice is supposed to be blind, but is it also supposed to be stupid?

[Albion Wilde]

Wasn’t Berg just a lawyer for a 911 truther? Would you cast guilt on all lawyers for what their plantiffs did or didn’t do or what the plantiff may believe?

There are lawyers who represent Mafia clients, child abusers and various other lowlife scumbags, but I don't have to believe that they or the Courts have superhuman powers not to be influenced by their clients' behavior and attitudes.

[KellyM37]

At first I thought all of this birth certificate talk was just sour grapes. It was the many other things that make me believe there is someting problematic for him with that birth certificate. It may just be an embarrassment, different father, maybe they weren't married, something like that. That would make him a liar and be humiliating, and remember, he is very vain and arrogant, a very sick man, a classic narcissist.

The one thing that really sounded alarms was his huge team of paid bloggers that scoured the interent to remove things about his past. I've never seen that done before and certainly not on such a massive scale. You tube, google, even archived google pages, wiped clean. POOF!!

Add that to the fact that he refused to release any relevant information from his schools. The fact that Linda Lingle the governor of hawaii said that nobody there even know him and as far as she knew he attended a few years in high school. His friends and asociates, many are Marxists and Communists. His slip up when he said " My Muslim Faith" I could go on and on.

Now you might expect a few inconsistencies I suppose, but this man's past and present is a total mystery. Every aspect opens up doors to another. Each day more and more things are found out, it boggles the mind. His trip to Africa to help Odinga that he called a "fact finding mission". Does anyone seriously buy that story based on the blatant evidence? he violated the Truman Doctrine by doing that.

What we have is a usurper, a mole, a Trojan Horse. The queation is, was he groomed by foreign parties or American Communists? That is the ONLY logical explanation for him hiding his past to the extent that he has.

His own statements, things he has said and done are suspicious. He puts his plans on his website, like requiring community service of our children, people go crazy, he removes it. He plays games, he is a bad person, very bad. He meant the community service deal for our children and he plans to do it, but it was volatile as hell so he figured he would remove it, ease it in later when he had more control.

The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he's officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. RULE???? Is that what he told her? Why would she use that word? Would you use that word? COME ON, give me a break.

I believe he has a hidden agenda for America and I believe he is an impatient man, he will try to move very fast. Probably creating a situation that will require Marshall law where we have no rights. People aren't stocking up on food, guns and ammo for no reason. They see it, they are fearful and it's a sad day for this great country when we have to fear our president, our government.

[Albion Wilde]

Please help me with this question: How many of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would it take to screw in a light bulb?

One. They already have a quaint custom of making the most recent appointee to the Court answer the door if they are in conference and one of their aides knocks.

Same with the light bulb. The newbie has to do it.

[TigersEye]

You're quite right, MHG. I was just addressing the apologist's argument that his reason for fighting disclosure is due to "something embarrassing" on his long-form BC. If everything is okey dokey then 0bama's actions don't make sense and neither do the excuses proffered to explain his actions.

Zer0 is a mystery wrapped in a dead fish wrapped in an old NYTs. (to paraphrase Oliver Stoned)

[TigersEye]

Basically then you are saying that all lawyers take on the thoughts and attitudes of their clients. In addition you are now saying that the courts do too.

[Albion Wilde]

Basically then you are saying that all lawyers take on the thoughts and attitudes of their clients. In addition you are now saying that the courts do too.

Sigh. Conservative extremists are as bad as leftie extremists. No, I'm not saying that.

I am saying that if a lawyer lies down with dogs, he gets up with fleas. No one is exempt from damage to his or her reputation among judges if he or she takes on a reprehensible client and advocates a reprehensible position in a high-profile matter.

[TigersEye]

I am saying that if a lawyer lies down with dogs, he gets up with fleas.

First deny it then confirm it. Obviously you are saying just what I claimed you did. lol

[MathDoc]

Redacted sounds fine until you look at your own BC and wonder “What is in here that is so private the American People cannot see this”?

What's so private?
We have a right to see "Place of Birth", since that is a prerequisite for the presidency.
We have the right to see child's name and mother's name to confirm the identity of the owner of the birth certificate.
One could argue that Obama has the right to keep father's name (Satan, Prince of Darkness) private, since we already know his loyalty but that is not related to his citizenship status.
The same goes for the father's usual occupation (Commuist organizer, anti-american spy).

I'm happy with just the basics - was this rising dictator actually born here yet he still hates our country, or is Obama a foreigner who hates America?

[MathDoc]

If Zero IS NOT a “Natural Born U.S. Citizen” then the delay tactics have provided enough time for suitable “Proof” of him being a “Natural Born U.S. Citizen” to be manufactured and appropriately inserted into the record. Does anybody here in their heart of hearts really believe that Zero, with all the money at his disposal, and all the Dems nationwide willing to break laws, blatantly, to help him, couldn’t get that done in the time allowed?

That's as silly as saying the Al Franken camp would be manufacturing new votes a month after election day. Dems wouldn't do that; it would be cheating.

[cripplecreek]

I went to school with a girl who’s father was an attorney. He was court appointed to represent two men who raped and murdered a teenage girl working in a local ice cream parlour.

He gave interviews with newspapers and declared his clients innocent when the rest of us knew they were guilty. The attorney’s house was burned down by an arsonist who was apparently an extremist who felt that he shouldn’t represent guilty men.

Like it or not, ALL Americans have an equal right to representation. Sounds to me like there are a few constitutional issues you would like to see quietly removed from the table.

[Polarik]

It's closer to $1 million in lawyers and legal fees having been spent by Bambi to dodge having to show his genuine, original, long-form, paper birth certificate to anyone.

Bambi's entire life history is built upon one, big bogus narrative, crafted by Devid Axelrod, Bill Ayers, and Saul Alinsky, with some George Soros for seasoning.

The BC is the key because it is the one alleged "Smear" that will conclusively be proven to be true, and then, when that happens, all of the other alleged "Smears" will be freshly scrutinized, and all of the other documentation that Bambi has refused to provide, will be requested anew.

In other words, open the vault where the BC redies, and you've opened the floodgates.

[Blackhawk]

That's as silly as saying the Al Franken camp would be manufacturing new votes a month after election day. Dems wouldn't do that; it would be cheating.

As I understand it, they are not manufacturing new votes, they are just double counting them. Big difference there. One is Fraud and illegal, the other is just a silly counting/math error.

[rosettasister]

Perhaps the following should be posted on another thread.

If so, sorry.

---

Found here:
“Letter from a reader, sample complaint to the Illinois bar against Obama”

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/letter-from-reader-sample-complaint-to.html

And also here in comments section:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2066

“Downloadable sample complaint to the Illinois bar against Obama”

http://www.4shared.com/file/76849580/92269d92/ATTORNEY_GRIEVANCE_COMPLAINT_AGAINST_BARACK_OBAMA.html

[Vendome]

Exactly.

Mr. Obama tear down this wall!

[trumandogz]

Good question. If you have been following these threads from the beginning you would know babies did not need passports in the early 60's since they traveled on their mother's passport.

I was born overseas just after Obama and until I was around five, I travelled on my mother's U.S. Passport. However, inside my mother's passport was a picture of me as well as a copy of my BC from the U.S. State Department. So, again, how do you propose Obama entered the U.S. without any documentation?

And you would know, if you followed these Obama citizen status threads, that Hawaii issued COLBs and birth certificates to foreign born babies up to 1972.

That would be correct, except for the fact that the Hawaii Department of Health website states something quite different.

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html

Now, could you please link an official source that states that a foreign born person could be granted a birth certificate in Hawaii?

[trumandogz]

Hawaii allowed registration of foreign births to anyone who lived in Hawaii for at least a year.

Not true.

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

[Polarik]

Hawaii allowed registration of foreign births to anyone who lived in Hawaii for at least a year.

Not true.

Absolutely true

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

[tyou48]

I’e been looking for an image of Maya’s COLB but cannot find it. Do you have a link?

[trumandogz]

§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

Yes, you are correct, I was wrong. However, the law that you cite did not exist until 1982.

And as I understand it, BHO was born in 1961 but if here were born sometime after 1982, his mom could have registered his birth in the State of Hawaii. Well, then again, you could be on to something! If Obama was born after 1982 he would not be qualified to be President.