That's "damn dirty, large fingered, freepin' apes", LOL :)
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 ...
I’m not a lawyer, but it strikes me as a legitimate angle of attack. The Nuremburg Trials established that military can’t just hide behind an “I was given orders” defense. They have some positive duty to assure themselves that orders are lawful. For soldiers who might be called to combat duty in particular, killing people on grounds that a private citizen ordered them to do so would be completely contrary to international and U.S. Military Code of Justice. The identical orders issued by a president, in contrast, would have inherent legitimacy arising from the constitutional authority accorded our Commander-in-Chief.
That said, how seriously the SC actually would examine the actual evidence in this case remains to be seen. It seems trivial to demand that Obama’s lawyers arrive with a certified copy of the long form BC. But they also have to consider what would happen to military discipline if in theory every one of millions of soldiers were permitted to drag the CINC into court on this issue. For example, in light of the fabricated documents already posted on the Web, in theory Berg could insist that even a certified copy of long form be examined by forensic experts for evidence of forgery. If the SC then ruled that the BC was authentic because Berg’s forensic experts couldn’t convince them otherwise, what’s to stop another soldier from filing a new challenge using different experts/different methods that hypothetically might be more convincing to the Court? Moreover, while any such case were pending, could anyone in the military elect NOT to go into combat on grounds that there was uncertainty about CINC’s constitutional authority? In theory this could be an infinite regress even though as a practical matter, constraints on legal resources that challengers were willing to throw at the issue likely would limit such challenges to a handful.
Anyway, not being a lawyer (but I served as SC Chief Justice in a mock trial in college! :-)), I have no idea of how the Court actually might reason. But the foregoing is an example of how they might opt to again pass on a full hearing of the case due to concerns over the can of worms it might open. I am amazed we have gotten this far without a definitive resolution and will cross my fingers the SC takes this on (even if Obama wins), if for no other reason than to more clearly establish the meaning of natural born citizen. As the thousands of posts here attest, that definition is very far from being settled law.
“Also, could the SCOTUS review this matter and still keep the details secret and just give the public a ruling that BO is qualified ?”
To reiterate my earlier post, I’m no lawyer, but having taken 4 Con Law courses in college, I am reasonably certain that SC can DENY certiorari without ever giving an explanation of their reasoning (as they have already done with Donofrio) but IF they opt for a full hearing, then any opinion rendered must be made public so that the public can understand the reasoning behind the decision (and hence the case can serve as guidance for lower courts and/or precedent for future decisions). But whether this extends to the evidence itself (e.g., if there were competing expert claims about document authenticity), I don’t know. They would certainly have to explain why they accepted Expert A’s judgment over Expert B’s. Note that in the vast majority of cases, the SC is serving as an appellate court, so they are ruling on matters of law/constitutional interpretation, as opposed to actually assessing evidence that is introduced.
In light of HIPAA, if the SC itself did not make available supporting documents such as long form BC, I don’t know whether plaintiff would be permitted to, on grounds that for the same reason Hawaiian officials are barred from disclosing the info, release of this would constitute an invasion of privacy etc.
You got that right.
My reply from my senator, I thought he was to uphold and defend the Constitution not throw it back on the people.
Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:
Dear
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.
Article II of the Constitution provides that “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.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.
The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.
Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.
After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation’s President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama’s policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.
I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
My reply from my senator, I thought he was to uphold and defend the Constitution not throw it back on the people.
Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:
Dear
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.
Article II of the Constitution provides that “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.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.
The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.
Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.
After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation’s President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama’s policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.
I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
That’s nuts.Thanks for sharing that.
Kind of embarrassing for Obama and the Dems to be insisting on all t’s crossed and I’s dotted in the case of Burris, but then to insist on sloppiness in the case of Obama’s credentials.
Can you imagine the flood of letters SCOTUS would receive if all the Freepers would join in.
He could very well be blackmailed right now. Hillery has top notch investigators who probably have all the secrets in one little bundle.
Any wonder all his appointments are clintonestas? They're all back.
I’m talking about the Alice in Wonderland situation in the U.S. Senate on this Tues. Jan. 6, 2009, the day all the newly elected Senators are seated.
For instance, look how vastly different the Senate has handled two highly explosive situations: The appointment of Illinois Senator Burris vs. the presidential eligibility of President-elect Obama.
1. Appointed Illinois Senator Burris.
2. Unbelievably, the Senate today denied Burris his legally appointed seat, because, according to news reports, Burris did not have the proper credentials and the Illinois Secretary of State did not or will not sign the proper certification papers.
3. As we all know, for the past week, Senate leaders have threatened this and threatened that to try to keep Burris out of the Senate.
4. Senate leaders have gone on talk shows to explain how the Burris appointment is somehow illegal or illegitimate or tainted, because, according to Senate leaders, the recently arrested governor of Illinois somehow does NOT have the right or power any longer to make such an appointment.
5. Obama presidential eligibility mess: Now let’s look at how the good Senators are treating president-elect Obama’s eligibility mess in this Senate Alice in Wonderland atmosphere.
6. Question: Do I see Senate leaders and other Senators publicly outraged and loudly threatening to refuse to accept the Obama Electoral College votes on Jan. 9 until president-elect Obama proves that he is eligible to be President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the United States?
7. No.
8. Question: Do I see Senate Leader Reid of Nevada, who claims to be a trial lawyer, running around and appearing on talk shows—like he has been doing recently to publicly condemn Burris Illinois senate appointment— shouting about how Obama’s election was tainted and how Obama has not provided one single document to prove that he is eligible to be President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the United States?
9. No.
10. Instead, Sen. Reid of Nevada and the other Senators will probably quietly pretend that president-elect Obama is absolutely clean, and they will probably greet the President-elect on Jan. 9 with open arms and broad smiles as they easily accept the Obama Electoral College votes on Jan. 9, 2009 that make Obama the next President of the United States.
11. Yes, 99 out of 100 good Senators—remember, one legally appointed Senator from Illinois was rejected by the Senate—–has turned the hallowed Senate chamber into something out of Alice in Wonderland, where what is supposed to be real is unreal, and what is supposed to be unreal is also unreal.
(NOTE: I have never lived in Illinois, and I don’t live in a nearby state. So, I knew very little about Illinois politics until Obama began running for president. )
NOTE: Illinois Secretary of State. He/she does not seem to want to certify the legally appointed Burris for Senator.
a. My question is this: If the Secretary of State of Illinois won’t certify Burris, then how in the world did the same Illinois Secretary of State certify Obama to run for President of the United States in Illnois?
b. That is, what valid documents did Obama provide to the Illinois Secretary of State that proved that Obama was eligible to be President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the United State?
c. My suggestion: I say that someone should sue the Illinois Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State can explain why it won’t certify Burris but somehow certified Obama.
NOTE: If the Illinois Secretary of State won’t certify Burris for Senator, then I wonder how the same Illinois Secretary of State certified Obama when he was elected a Senator from Illinois.
That is, what documents did Obama provide to the Illinois Secretary of State to prove that he was at least 30 years old and an American citizen as required by the Constitution of the United States? Could someone help me with this question?
Good questions.......
Ed Hale has turned it all over to Lawyer Steve Pidgeon and lawyer Dr. Orly to handle it all
All Hale is doing is trying to raise money to help them with their expenses.
Dr. Orly says she has documents to prove Obama as Barry Soerento applied and receive foreign student aid or so I heard on plainsradio tonight.
If so, this would verify that he was not a natural born citizen.
Report Thurs 8PM plainsradio
“Could someone help me with this question?”
What you brought up with Burris shows how the SoS’s are corrupt and only choose to do their jobs when it is expedient for them.
But it’s much worse than just the SoSs, which is bad enough, but when it comes to Obama, and you look at what has to happen for basically the entirety of the elected government to not point out the obvious fact that he’s not eligible.
It’s Republican leaders and Democratic leaders. It’s basically ALL of them. Someone with a british citizen father, who took his name, writes books about him, spends time not only in his homeland but activly participates in the highest levels of government, amongst a million other things, and NOBODY points out that he’s not qualified? Everybody signs off on the guy? They know, and are going along with it.
Thanks for your reply. I take it you're not clear on what the intention and meaning behind natural born citizen is yet? It really is pretty simple, and shouldn't ever have to go to court. Think about it, since 1776, no one has had a problem with figuring it out. What's different today? Are we getting dumber as time goes by? People are just bewildered at the situation that's been pushed on them. It's really very simple, and the question is if there are enough people with the courage to not allow themselves, for whatever reason, to just let this slide.
A natural born citizen was born here with 2 citizen parents.
If people insist on taking it to court,to question if maybe one parent could be an alien (silly, but so is this situation on the face of it) there is no way the founders would have intended it for the mother to be the deciding factor. It would obviously be the father, and Obama loses again.
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.