Posted on 10/25/2008 3:52:37 PM PDT by Danae
Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end. UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
# # #
Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005 (610) 825-3134 (800) 993-PHIL [7445] Fax (610) 834-7659 philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
And this particular House of representatives would happily qualify Josef Stalin as eligible.
Bump!
This is a three ring circus gone bad.
That needs to be made into its own thread!
obumpa
I have not read the whole thread, sorry if this has been mentioned. So the facts as I understand are:
- BHO, Michelle, Bernadine and Surrick all have connections back to the same law firm in their younger days
- Surrick is now in Hawaii
- BHO made a sudden trip to Hawaii to visit a gravely ill grandmother that he has seen once in 25 years, after waiting three days to go while he was still campaigning
- BHO was scheduled to leave Hawaii at 5pm on Friday (I heard it on CNN)
- the judge issued his findings at 6:15pm
Something just seems a little fishy if you ask me . . .
Bingo.
That's what the judge held.
The Michigan Law Review articles I posted on my thread set out the avenues for addressing this issue after the election.
If Obama wins.
And didn’t Obama go to Hawaii by himself, and left the wife and kids?
During an election for Senator (either the Illinois or US Senates, I forget which), Obama had votes for his opposition voided on the basis that the individual voters were “ineligible”. A court upheld that accusation.
So, Obama has “standing” to deem voters “ineligible” and have their votes voided, but citizens who are voters cannot challenge his eligibility for the Presidency?
Is this ever screwed up!
It would not be a change of any law.
The Constitution is the law, and the idea that any citizen of legal voting age has no standing to demand that the business of the US be done according to that document is absurd.
Fishier than Fulton’s Fish Market!
This is really something that SCREAMS for investigation by the MSM!
I am not holding my breath.
Good attorneys always provide the judge a suggested ruling in their favor. Judges don’t have to use them, but they often do.
You do not need a birth certificate to get a passport.
Obama had two opportunities to get a passport.
One - he could have kept his mother’s ‘family passport’ renewed. Then, his mother, Stanley Ann, ONLY needed a notorized letter to add her baby to the passport. Keeping it renewed would have turned into his own passport.
Two - our state department does NOT require a birth certificate. If you do not have one, you take the Letter of No Record option to apply for one.
http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/
From the website: I am in the process of reviewing the memorandum, but one item that immediately caught my attention in a brief glance was this comment in the footnotes:
“...Moreover, the Court In Bullock did not limit or in any way invalidate votes that had already been cast; nor did it void the results of the elections that had taken place. Se Ed. at 136- 37, 149 (affi,ing thai court’s pe,,aianent injunction of the filing fee law). By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one ot’the most iotIy contested presidential primaly in living memory...
Pg 11
(spelling mistakes in transcript aside, that is one of the most self-serving, disgusting, disgraceful...things I have read in my entire life!)
The Hawaii trip was obviously very productive for obama.
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/09/andy-martin-exposes-barack-obamas-lies.html
Excerpt:
Obama's law degree thus appears to have been financed through the encouragement of persons who had been violent revolutionaries and remain unrepentant to this day, the same unconventional way the purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion was party financed by an Iraqi billionaire.
Why did Obama get hired as a "summer associate" in 1989 at the law firm which had hired Ayers' wife, and where Ayers' father was a prominent friend of the managing partner at Sidley & Austin? The answer is obvious. Ayers was grooming Obama as his future "front."
Where did Obama get his first and only legal job after Harvard? At a law firm where Tony Rezko was a prominent client and where name partner Judson Miner was a law school classmate of Bernadine Dohrn-Ayers. Yes, the pieces are starting to come together.
Was Obama telling ABC the truth when he said met the Ayers' at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995? Ayers had already been working with Obama for seven years; Ayers had appointed Obama to head a $50 million foundation. Did Ayers appoint a stranger? Or a front man? The answer is obvious.
(snip)
If you call or e-mail, please include my post 222, thanks!!!
I have not followed the whole story as well. But, this is too easy to refute. All he has to do is produce a birth certificate.
How hard could it be if he was born here? (The US)
Here’s a link to the thread with the Michigan Law Review articles.
Legal Issues in Connection With Challenge to Presidential Eligibility Under Article II, Sec. 1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2113310/posts
He could, he has standing.
Excerpt:
1989 Tom Ayers and William Ayers get Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin (where he meets Michelle Obama); Ayers' wife Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley at about the same time as Barack and Michelle.
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.