Posted on 02/17/2010 4:30:28 PM PST by Elderberry
This is a Qui Tam (False Claims) Action wherein the U.S. District Court had original jurisdiction pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 through 3733. This is an appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, entered on June 9, 2009 and September 21, 2009.
Notice of Appeal was timely filed on October 21, 2009. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The government filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Qui Tam (False Claims) action against Barack Hussein Obama for his term as United States Senator for the State of Illinois, who now happens to be the President of the United States. The Court held a Hearing under Seal. The government claimed they had an unfettered discretion to dismiss the case and the Court did not have any say in the matter. The Court complied with the Government and Dismissed the Relator’s Action against Barack Hussein Obama on June 9, 2009.
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal on the basis of the law discovered regarding the Government’s Conflict-of-Interest as Barack Hussein Obama was the sitting President and their boss. Appellant was not afforded a hearing or chance to be heard, although he requested such, and Appellant’s Motion was Denied on September 21, 2009.
This timely appeal was filed on October 21, 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
It matters because it’s not going anywhere.
I read the thing and it is a mess of poor construction, faulty logic, false conclusions, and poor legal reasoning.
The underlying idea in this case is not that Obama fails to meet the constitutional requirements of a natural born citizen. It argues that he is an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Without proof.
Short version: “Appellant believes a lot of stuff. Why isn't that good enough to do something?”
I'll give him points for originality though. Obama is an illegal alien who couldn't serve as Senator.
Berg has involved himself with several controversial political cases. In 2001 he demanded the disbarment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas due to their participation in the case Bush v. Gore.[2] In 2004, Berg filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit on behalf of a World Trade Center maintenance worker against President George W. Bush and others alleging that the Bush and certain government officials conspired to bring about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.[3] The federal district court dismissed the suit. He challenged President George W. Bush on his right to conduct a war against terror and another against Saddam Hussein with only a congressional authorization.[4]
Berg was successfully sued for legal malpractice by former clients on whose behalf Berg had neglected to file a response to a complaint in an ERISA lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the former clients. Berg responded by bringing into the malpractice suit the plaintiffs in the ERISA action on a claim of fraud upon the court. The ERISA plaintiffs moved for summary judgment—which was granted after Berg failed to respond to the motion—and then moved for sanctions against Berg. Berg again failed to file a response.
On June 2, 2005, U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted the motion for sanctions, finding that the fraud claim was “was inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him.” Observing that an attorney's signature on a complaint constitutes, among other things, a certification that the signer has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the grounds for the claim asserted, the court further found that “even the most limited investigation would have revealed that [Berg] had no standing to raise such a claim.” The court also found that Berg's claim was motivated by a “desire to harass” and “delay litigation.” The court fined Berg $10,000 and ordered him to attend six hours of ethics training.[5][6]
While Berg is often referred to as the former “Deputy Attorney General” of Pennsylvania, he was merely one of many such deputy attornies general; indeed at the lowest level, Deputy Attorney General I, Berg's level, there were more than forty such office holders.
Thus far there have been 65 court actions involving Obama’s eligibility including 7 at the US Supreme Court. The scorecard is Obama: 65/Plaintiffs O
Yea. That deck has been stacked for a long long time.
That’s why I favor trying the criminal side instead of the civil lawsuit side of the judicial system.
Any prosecuting attorney in the nation could initiate a Grand Jury investigation. Prosecutors go on legal “fishing expeditions” all the time. That way Obama’s original birth records could be subpoenaed and examined by experts under oath.
I agree. I always felt that he should have been pursued for getting all those campaign donations under false pretenses.
The Anti-birthers are worried and troubled about MANY things ( “ we need to focus on other issues instead of this losing birther issue, it’s a waste of time “ ) .....
obumpa
I favor a grand jury investigation for forgery/fraud concerning his Certification of Live Birth. Any prosecuting attorney in the nation where Obama’s name was on the ballot could initiate the “fishing expedition.”
According to The Center for Responsive Politics which tracks campaign contributions, 90.2% of Obama’s contributions had full disclosure, 3.7% had partical disclosure and 6% had no disclosure.
That compared with 87.2% full disclosure for John McCain, 3.6% partial disclosure and 9.2% no disclosure.
There’s probably no “there” there.
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.