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 ...
Okay. $1.5m is too much. $100K is too low. I still can’t get to $1m. I just don’t see any evidence. I might be willing to go $500K.
No thanks.
Well, it can reasonably be stated that your opinions on this birthcertificate matter, in the discussions on this website, lie on one extreme. We may therefore reasonably establish $500,000 as the lower limit.
The mean of the two extremes is calculated as one million.
I don’t think you establish $500k as the lower limit just because you see my viewpoints as extreme. My fellow “trolls” have far more extreme positions than I. I’d say I’m closer to the middle. I don’t agree with birthers who are one extreme and I don’t agree with anti-birthers who are on the other extreme.
But you can establish whatever figure you like. We’ll never agree until there is some evidence. It’s all speculation at this point. Obama’s defense team represented him in at least three eligibility lawsuits that I can document with evidence. So he had to spend some amount of money on it.
Either way, the long form will not satisfy me. I want a SCOTUS ruling.
It is Obama’s so far successful strategy of hiding documents, especially his original HI vital records, that prevents vetting by the public or authorities, short of a court order.
Short of forensic analysis of these hidden documents and then SCOTUS rulings on what those documents show, I can't claim to know with certainty whether Obama is NBC or not. D'Onofrio claims that Obama's statement that he was a UK subject at birth (governed by the 1948 BNA) is a legal "statement against interest", i.e. a stipulated fact that can be used against a party.
On his blog, D'Onofrio said that given this statement, he is unconcerned about whether Obama's parents were married (before disclosure of the HI vital records) or whether the marriage was bigamous (still an issue). D'Onofrio says this statement alone makes Obama a self-declared dual citizen and is grounds for a quo warranto case challenging Obama's eligibility.
I hope D'Onofrio is right. But I expect Obama to throw his alleged UK citizenship under the bus if bigamous illegitimacy would save him by making him the unitary citizen son of a legally unmarried US citizen mother.
Obama could claim that he didn't make this 1948 BNA statement himself, but rather it was underlings in his campaign. Or he could claim that he didn't know until recently that the marriage of his parents was bigamous. In my view, only legal discovery and authentication of proof of a foreign birth sufficient to meet the federal rules of evidence will unseat Obama prior to the end of his first term. If D'Onofrio's Chrysler quo warranto can survive long enough to obtain discovery of the HI vital records, we might just get there.
Has Barry Soetoro told us that he is an illegitimate child?
Has he even told us anything about his adoption to Lolo Soetoro??
Has he told us anything about transferring from Indonesian citizenship to a "native" U.S. citizendhip and still be a British/E.U. citizen with voting rights???
Thanks for your kind reply.
Did you know that Hillary was once a “Goldwater girl”?
We are talking about the person being hired (elected) to the highest office in our country??
As his "employer" don't we have the right to know???
Judging from what she writes, she gives idiots a bad name.
In the latest FEC reports of October 15, 2009 for the period July 1-September 30 (8-11 months after the election), McCain’s legal expenditures were $27,676.34.
In the same period, Obama’s legal expenditures were $323,774.06, of which $313,884.06 went to the Perkins Coie firm that has represented him in certain of the eligibility cases.
How would one explain rationally the twelve-fold difference of legal expenditures this far out from the campaign (with total Obama post-election legal expenses now over $1.7M, eclipsing in Obama’s case what was spent on the campaign) without readily inferring that “most” of the Obama campaign’s post-election legal expenses are related to the eligibility suits?
“We are talking about the person being hired (elected) to the highest office in our country?
As his ‘employer’ don’t we have the right to know?”
_________________________________________________________
Yes, I think the reasonalble answer is yes.
I make the SAME argument toward the end of this article(see link).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076357/posts
This is what I then said, as follows:
“A few years back I sent away for an original copy of my birth certificate.
I had lost mine.
The original copy paper says (not on the copy-image itself but on the copy paper to the left of the copy-image) ‘must be validated on back’ … and there is a date and signature etc.
On the back is an embossed stamp together with more dates and signatures etc.
It cost me about ten dollars (in those days) for an official original copy of my birth certificate, on file at my state capital.
I got it in about ten days.
I was young and had moved to another state.
Having lost my birth certificate, I needed an original copy in order to get a driver license, a bank account, and ultimately… a job.
Employers — especially companies that must report taxis and pay into workers compensation and other programs — expect to see some sort of identification from a potential employee.
They like to know who they are hiring.
They also like to know that the employee is honest and trustworthy.
The American people may be ‘hiring’ Barack Obama as the next President of The United States.
As a potential employee, we (the People of the United States) would like Obama to submit legitimate identification, namely:
A birth certificate or an official original copy of his birth certificate.
I don’t think that’s asking too much from a potential employee.”
STE=Q
“Has he even told us anything about his adoption to Lolo Soetoro??
“Has he told us anything about transferring from Indonesian citizenship to a “native” U.S. citizendhip and still be a British/E.U. citizen with voting rights???”
Barry lies all the time, thus I seek the best forensic evidence available for all of his assertions.
I also seek forensic evidence of all accusations against Obama. So far I have seen no admissible evidence that Obama was adopted by Soetoro or was naturalized as an Indonesian citizen (entry in a school register doesn't count). Barry's placement in the foreign student dorms (mostly with Muslims) is certainly circumstantially suspicious and justifies extra effort to legally obtain his Occidental records (although his privacy rights seem ironclad).
See American Thinker's piece today on the Obituary for Percy Sutton:
“Exactly how young Barack Obama, a man of slender means, managed to pay for a Harvard Law degree has long been a mystery, and the President has not been forthcoming about any details of his elite education.
“See for yourself, Sutton's remarkable statement, which has been considgned to the Memory Hole, by the major media. Not even a reference to a “controversial contention” or other such euphemism. It simply never happened as far as the media are concerned.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/percy_sutton_dies_his_obama_re.html
Any person occupying the Oval Office will rack up substantial legal fees. It comes with the job.
This has NOTHING to do with the Office he now holds. These are funds from his presidential campaign. As POTUS, all his legal issues are handled by DOJ.
Obama's attorneys defended him in 3 of 62 eligibility-related lawsuits. See this link for details.
Tell me how one could logically assume that 8 total items filed by Perkins Coie would cost $1.7m or anything even close to it. Then tell me how Organizing for America, for which Perkins Coie is general counsel, would NOT have legitimate legal expenses separate and apart from the 8 filings in the eligibility lawsuits.
Looking at FEC reports, that detail nothing, and concluding that all/most of the money paid to Perkins Coie is for defense in the eligibility lawsuits is illogical, and frankly, ludicrous.
P.S. The twelve-fold difference that you mention is easily explained, IMHO, by the fact that Organizing for America merged with the DNC and continues to operate today. McCain's campaign organization did not merge with the RNC and therefore would have no major projects that would require significant legal expenses.
He’d also be proud to be an American. He ought to be proud to prove his citizenship.
Obama for America is no longer Obama’s presidential campaign. It became Organizing for America, a part of the DNC, sometime in January 2009 right after the election. Perkins Coie is the general counsel for Obama for America.
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.