Posted on 01/05/2009 2:29:18 AM PST by Hang'emAll
At approximately 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2008, I was in the Clerk of Court's office in the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia doing part of my job as a legal writer and reading the civil cases which had been filed that day. (Snip)
After the man left, the clerk told me that I should probably take a look at the complaint. (Snip)
You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.
This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama. Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. Ee sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since. (snip)
Okay. Back to the case.(Snip)
Do you think the scheduling is because Justice Scalia knows more about three of his colleagues than he lets on, and things that they’ll grant cert on Friday, or do you think that they’re merely putting all aspects of this case through the progressions so as to ward off future actions?
I don’t know. It could be either. It certainly is interesting. Two conferences make it unique. The order of the docket entries kind of makes it unique.
By scheduling the injunction for a week after the petition, does that mean that they are considering the injunction ahead of time? (Snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at americasright.com ...
Have you seen this?
Make sure you read the article and comments...(very good)
Telling of a student who remarked....
“what make a natural born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-Section....”
ROFLMAO
Yes Mickie. Why else would Barry be reconstituting the Clinton White House and allowing Hillary the Secy. of State position where she can pursue her own foreign policy and world class protection rackets.
Blackmailing can be subtle as in payoffs, blocked plans, leaking of material, and investigations of fbi file and other information - and it can also be overt such as damaging information, threats to family, and to one’s life. The Clintons are expert at all of the above.
Someone I am close to changed his name and in order to do so legally, at least in CA about 14 years ago, he had to fill out a specific corm, have it notarized, and use that form to change his name on every usage like driver’s license and every other legal document except passport (he had to wait 5 yrs for that), PLUS put a very specific announcement in a newspapr for IIRC four times. That was the easy method. THe other method involved a court and a lawyer.
It was called the useage method, and it did involve certain procedures.
Check my comment above about CA usage method name change. At least some yrs ago.
Orly Tavitz has, from what I have read, learned that 0bama did not list any additional names when he applied for his lawyer license (whatever the correct terminology is). That is a specific question when applying for such a license.
“0bama did not list any additional names when he applied for his lawyer license
Right, but again, my impression is that this is a bogus argument. Perhaps some legal eagle knows better, but I believe applicants merely are required to list other names under which they may have practiced law. The intent, I presume, is to ensure that the state has some means to perhaps prevent lawyers disbarred in one state from easily just moving to another state to practice law. Any lawyer who tries to circumvent this by lying faces the risk that any member of the public could later expose the deception, in which case the failure to list a previous name would itself presumably become grounds for disbarment.
In contrast, it serves no particular public purpose to have individuals whose names may have changed several times in childhood to due changes in parental marriage relationships etc. report a laundry list of such name changes, as they don’t impact on the lawyer’s fitness to become licensed in that state etc. I have seen the filled-out portion of Obama’s form several times, but no one has ever posted the detailed instructions for filling the form out. So the foregoing is speculative on my part. Perhaps someone who has experience with such forms can provide a more definitive account of whether Obama’s failure to provide these childhood name changes truly is a legal transgression.
What do you think about the actual case? The interpleader and the Colonel having standing, and having to follow the orders of a BOGUSPOTUS?
::shakes head::
That’s why it’s so important to get the material out to The Globe. It’s the only thing that gets through to some people.
Maybe if we get Simon appointed to SCOTUS as a judge it may get attention :P
FRAUD AND MAIL FRAUD ARE THE WORDS YOUR LOOKING FOR.
This just confirms what I’ve thought for some time, that there is a great conspiracy of silence. However, what kind of president can Obama be if foreign powers and unscrupulous local politicans know the truth and can hold it over him? He will be serving everyone except those he was elected to serve and America will be held to ransom, and become a laughing stock into the bargain.
A president with secrets is a target for blackmail.
Is no one alarmed by this?
Or just maybe he is the one blackmailing everyone else into silence.
Just a thought.
President "Jail Bird" Obama who, regardless of the outcome of Berg's case, is still a perpetrator of document fraud.
I guess YOU’RE is the word I’M looking for. Give us large fingered apes a break.
Berg filed one injunction to stay the electoral process until Obama has proven his eligibility to the Court. The injunction pertains to the three stages of the process: (1) certifying electors, (2) Electors voting, and (3) House counting and validating the votes.
The first conference scheduled by SCOTUS is the writ of certiori that Berg filed to get the SCOTUS to consider the injunction and the Constitutional questions raised, as something extremely important and serious enough for them to consider. The second conference is about the injuction itself.
The fact that the writ conference occurs after the House vote on Jan 8, and the injunction conference occurs a week later will pose no problem for SCOTUS who can stay the inauguration until Obama produces his vault birth certificate. If Obama fails to do so, then he will be disqualified.
Yes, everyone will know about it after it happens.
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.