Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama eligibility - naive law student gets an 'F' as attorney rips her a new one
renewanmerica.com ^ | 12/24/09 | Philip J. Berg

Posted on 12/26/2009 6:59:53 AM PST by westcoastwillieg

Attorney Philip J. Berg defends Obama birth certificate lawsuits

Editor's note: Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and an activist attorney who brought a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become president of the United States, has written the following reply to Jamie Freeze's Dec. 22 RenewAmerica article "Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen."

Jamie Freeze, a law student, has called any of us who question Soetoro/Obama's citizenship status and constitutional eligibility to serve as U.S. President --- a constitutional right of ours, of course --- incompetent idiots. Ms. Freeze, however, may want to continue her education. Part of being a lawyer, a very important part, is being able to comprehend what you read and to cite the correct law to collaborate it, something Ms. Freeze has clearly failed to do.

I will respond below to Ms. Freeze's allegations. My responses are in bold. I also want to make very clear to all readers that none of the eligibility cases have been heard, litigated, or dismissed based on the law pertaining to any of the issues raised. Instead, the eligibility cases have been dismissed on the basis of "STANDING" only.

(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: berg; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; freezeheartsbarrack; freezeisanidiot; jamiefreeze; jamieisaloser; jamieisaweirdo; lawsuit; military; obama; obotdrew; philberg; philipberg; philipjberg; trollsonfreerepublic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-297 next last
To: sometime lurker

Any proof has been hidden and sealed by 0bomba. But of course you know this.


181 posted on 12/26/2009 6:24:49 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

A barrel of money on what? There’s no documentation in those FEC reports to substantiate the claim that ANY amount of money was spent on the eligibility lawsuits. So what you ask? There’s what.


182 posted on 12/26/2009 6:29:28 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
"The “WERE NOT MARRIED” presumption, while that was probably not your intention, is also irrelevant. Kenya has a reasonably-sized Muslim population, in which, under Sharia law, polygamy is perfectly legal."

• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:

49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf

183 posted on 12/26/2009 7:19:09 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"If they weren’t married, why the Dunham-Obama divorce records? Serious question, no sarcasm intended."

HI has released proof of the marriage vital record, but Stanley Ann's uncontested divorce filing does not retroactively legitimate her marriage to Obama if it was indeed bigamous under the following act:

• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:

49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf

If the HI marriage was bigamous (Kenya was under UK colonial law not sharia, even for muslims) then the BNA of 1948 explicitly does not govern the child of that illegitimate marriage:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

184 posted on 12/26/2009 7:33:41 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; curth; BenLurkin; pepperdog; Quix
If one would actually read the article linked to, "I don't understand how a Christian can be a Republican", one can avoid those embarrassing moments caused by posting completely silly comments.
Drive-by comments based on titles can be so revealing.
185 posted on 12/26/2009 7:47:29 PM PST by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Thank you for this post.


186 posted on 12/26/2009 7:50:37 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
I have made that point so often. One judge actually SAID that the President was vetted by “tweets and texts” and I’m thinking “Can I scan in a receipt to show I was somewhere else as an alibi?”

I doubt it and yet THIS issue it seems acceptable.

That reminds me of this little incident:

TV footage clears a man charged with murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2935710

187 posted on 12/26/2009 7:59:31 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

bookmark


188 posted on 12/26/2009 8:20:09 PM PST by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate? Quo Warranto in 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
If one would actually read the article linked to, "I don't understand how a Christian can be a Republican", one can avoid those embarrassing moments caused by posting completely silly comments. Drive-by comments based on titles can be so revealing.

Is that directed to me? If it is, you'll notice I made no editorial comment on her writing in post 25.

189 posted on 12/26/2009 8:53:05 PM PST by raybbr (If you try to kiss your son on the head while he's running you WILL get a fat lip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thanks for the ping!


190 posted on 12/26/2009 8:56:50 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; HighlyOpinionated
Any proof has been hidden and sealed by 0bomba. But of course you know this.

Yes, he's hidden many things. But the problem with that approach is that itsounds like conspiracy theorizing - "no proof of my accusations? Well, that just shows how deep the conspiracy is!"

I'm not saying these things can't be true, I'm saying that HighlyOpinionated's assertions came from somewhere, and I haven't seen any evidence for any of them, aside from "Barry Soetero" on an elementary school application in Indonesia. There has to be some evidence for the accusations, or one could make up anything about anyone. What is needed:

I'll say it again - there's lots of things to go after 0bama about, but repeating internet myths doesn't help us. Unsubstantiated accusations don't help us.
191 posted on 12/26/2009 9:00:32 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob; All

There you go again!


192 posted on 12/26/2009 9:17:24 PM PST by FARS (Be well, be happy and THRIVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

bump for later read


193 posted on 12/26/2009 9:23:30 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

You might want to go to the original article written by Ms. Freeze and check out her profile before accusing here of being a "Obama Lover"!

Sometimes even facts get ignored here on FR!

"Dear President Obama, YOU ROCK for telling Kanye who he really is. Thanks! Love, Jamie"--twittered from this twit



I can smell the patchuli and THC from here.

Just as Megan McQueeg is a true conservative, this fat cow has no mandingo love for Obama. /freeper mental defective league.

194 posted on 12/26/2009 9:42:16 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Well, we didn't get dressed up for nothin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

As I see it, ‘Education’ today, for most students, is merely selective programming.

Critical thinking and analysis is not being stressed. Submission to the prevailing mantra is what is being applauded and rewarded with academic accolades.


195 posted on 12/26/2009 9:56:05 PM PST by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Nothing can be substantiated or disproved due to 0bomba’s thuggery. That’s what the lawsuits are about.

If he hadn’t sealed, scrubbed, hidden, locked up, erased, etc all his personal records from his entire freaking life none of these threads would exist.

Of course, he probably woudln’t be president, either. We could be bitching about McCain.

BTW, I am totally sick of the word “conspiracy”. Or “conspiracy theory”. I give a **** what leftists or the media thinks of conservatives. They will hate, villify, lie about and harass conservatives until they die. So what?

It is no “theory” that 0bomba is hiding every fact about his life and his so-called autobiographies (two? Before the age of 50??) are lying propaganda, not even written by him. That’s no theory.


196 posted on 12/26/2009 9:59:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
No, not directed "at" you. I was referring to comments directed "at" the article described in your post.
Sorry for the confusion. I was including a ping to you since it was about your post.

Seeing her "tweet" to ObaMoa I'm not sure this woman is worthy of much attention.
197 posted on 12/26/2009 10:02:10 PM PST by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Thanks Seizethecarp, but Obama Sr. had other wives, never divorced any and never served time in jail. A fascinating attribute of British law is its richness. There is no requirement for a kind of uniqueness principle such as found in axiomatic systems like mathematics.

I have tried to pursue just a few legal provisions in the British law and began to realize the advantage of a somewhat fixed constitutional foundation: there is is usually just one correct determination. British common law often has more than one. Then, when there is a challenge, the only recourse is back to the House of Commons or, in the past, directly to the crown.

Another inconsistency in the Marriage Act of 1902 is that polygamy is “absolutely in accordance with Mohammedan law.” The British are proceeding to rectify that inconsistency by recognizing independent Sharia courts in England. The British are now making independent welfare payments to the several wives of a number of Muslim immigrants.

British common law can be very accommodating. Barristers can usually find a law to suit their client's case, leaving interpretation to the judges. Then success is predicated upon being of the correct class.

Whether the presumed Hawaiian marriage happened remains irrelevant. What matters by our Constitution is who the parents were. Obama has told us, many times, Obama Sr. is his father. These days a DNA test might be used if that claim is contested, But who would contest it? By the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barry was born a subject of the British Empire. Barry confirmed that on his own web site. He never claimed he was a natural born citizen, but said he was a “Native-born.” He knew exactly what he was saying to avoid prison, on that charge at least.

The law firm which defended McCain in his trial, settled out of court, challenging McCain's failure to satisfy Article II, also had a senior partner on Obama’s compaign board - Kendall and Ellis. They are experts on Article II. They paid a had a young associate to write a journal article attacking the natural born citizenship requirement: Sarah Herilhy,Chicaco-Kent Law Review, 2005. That suggests that the groundwork for the British subject was being laid as early as 2005. Herlihy talks lots about globalism and never once mentions Marshall, Jay, Waite, Hamilton. Time will tell whether this ploy will succeed completely, but if it does, we will be unlikely to read it in the completely state controlled media.

198 posted on 12/26/2009 10:33:43 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: y6162

And she and a few others here are “After-Birthers”!!!


199 posted on 12/26/2009 10:39:08 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Link scrubbed!!!


200 posted on 12/26/2009 10:54:10 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-297 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson