All of Obama's Legal Cases

US Courts System ^ | 2/10/2009 | US Courts

[mlo]

"She was speaking Swahili on the Berg tape. The interpeter said that she said he was born in a hospital in Mombasa, kenya."

You said that.

I said, I never heard anything like that on the tape. Please point it out.

[mlo]

"NO NO NO!!! They did not want anyone with divided national ALLEGIANCE!!!"

I already covered this. You are talking about motive and purpose. The way they chose to implement that purpose, the rule they imposed, was to prohibit foreigners from coming to America, being naturalized, and becoming President. That's the effect of the "natural born" requirement. It is totally in keeping with the motive.

That you think they *should* have been more restrictive doesn't change what they in fact did.

[mlo]

"That certificate of live birth which is not a birth certificate is clearly fraudulent."

No it isn't clearly fraudulent.

"If you don’t want except the word of six electronic forensic document examiners with a combined total of 120 years of forensic document examination..."

What six examiners are you talking about? I never heard of these people before.

"That fake document lists Barack Hussein Obama’s race has African. It lists his mother’s race as Caucasian. Africa is not a race. I can guarantee you that no government entity in 1961, Hawaii included was referring to black people as Africans even if they were from Africa."

There wasn't a defined list of official choices. The person filling out the form put "African". Believing he should have put something else is not evidence of forgery.

"The only reference to the validity of the vault birth certificate made by the State of Hawaii is that they have a valid birth certificate on file in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State of Hawaii. We know that Obama’s half-sister Maya Ng Soetero has a valid Hawaii certificate on file and there is no dispute that she was born in Indonesia."

Show me Maya's birth certificate where it says she was born in Hawaii.

"Hawaii will accept the registration of foreign births under their state statutes. Obama’s forged short form certificate of live birth is no proof that he was born in Hawaii."

This old stuff, gone over repeatedly. The statutes people cite for this were passed in 1982. The statutes do not condone fraud. They require proof, and they are not a license to *lie*. The certificate will still show the real place of birth.

[mlo]

Let's put it this way. Whatever you believe Howard meant, he wasn't writing the law in that statement. He wasn't King.

The law is what it is. The law is, anyone born here is a citizen except for the children of diplomats or of soldiers of invading armies.

[mlo]

"I'm asking those people for the basis for their belief."

"And they would give you the list I think I did above."

Which you acknowledged wasn't proof. Given that, wouldn't it be wise of those people to back off the rhetoric a bit?

[mlo]

“subject to the jurisdiction” excludes diplomats and soldiers of invading armies. Not aliens. Not even illegal aliens.

[BP2]

The secretary of state of Cal requires the parties to vet their candidates for qualifications. That precludes them from nominating an unqualifed person. If you want to write in an unqualified person that's your business.

Nufsed, I believe you, and concur that ALL SOS’s have a moral obligation to vet candidates, as well as a legal Constitutional duty to vet all National-level candidates, by proxy.

However, there is LEGAL precedence and, IMO, FLAWED legal reasoning that must be overturned for us to succeed. For example, here's an excerpt from the case I cited previously (HOLLANDER v. MCCAIN and the RNC, 4-30-08, http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Hollander-M2DisFAC.pdf):

The Supreme Court has also repeatedly observed that political parties and their members “enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association.” Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 487 (1975). Indeed, “[i]n no area is the political association's right [to free association] more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.” Jones, 530 U.S. at 575. This process “often determines the party's positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day” and results in the nomination of a candidate “who becomes the party's ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party's views.” Id. Because the nomination process implicates core First Amendment freedoms, “a State, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party.” Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 123-24 (1981). This is true even though a plaintiff may believe that his party's selection of a nominee was unwise or detrimental to the party's interests. See id. at 124; see also Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208, 224 (1986).

So you see, this is the type of REAL legal precedence (and there are others I won't discuss publicly) vexing Berg, Taitz, Pidgeon, Joyce, Donofrio, Wrotnowski, and others. There ARE "work arounds" and I've explored them with some of these attorneys, and at least two have refiled or re-focused their efforts as a result ...

I remember that Minnesota state election law had been changed in 1986 to specifically DEFER candidate eligibility verification ONLY for the office of President and VP to the National Parties to verify.

Can you post a link or reference in California election law (or that of any state) that outlines the SOS responsibility on this issue? I'd like to see what's on the books.

[mlo]

"Lastly, when Bill Richardson said on camera, that Obama is an immigrant, that was very telling to me."

It could only be significant if we assumed Bill Richardson somehow knew something nobody else does. I don't think that's reasonable.

More likely, he was talking about the fact that Obama had a foreign parent and had lived overseas before living in the US. He just blurred the distinctions.

[nufsed]

I cannot.

I exchanged e-mails with her office. They said it was the party's responsibility. I sent the e-mail to Alan Keyes and posted it here.

I resigned my position of poll officer after asking the registrar of voters to strike his name from the San Diego ballots or with hold reporting his votes. I will not participate in an election process in which there is fraud alledged and no one is investigating it.

I believe the basis for Keyes' suit is to get a writ of mandamus to impel her to do the job.

If someone has a copy of Keyes' filing maybe they will post it.

[mlo]

"The courts have only addressed the matter in dicta, that is in ways not necessary to reach the decision in the cases before them, which all concerned citizenship, not natural born citizenship."

The cases weren't just about citizenship. They were about citizenship at birth, and citizenship acquiring to children of aliens at birth.

Not only is the "natural born citizen" definition intimately connected to those issues, if you read the complete decisions the opinions expressed on the question are overwhelming. They cannot be dismissed simply because it is dicta.

[mlo]

"He's an atheist."

I believe this is true.

[nufsed]

You always take the least likely interpretation. You don't call some one an immigrant because their parents are immigrants. You refer to them as the son or daughter of immigrants or second generation.

You have taken a very simple statement with a very clear meaning and spun it to support your failure to call for the exposition of the truth.

At this point, I'm very suspect of either your analytical skills or your motivation.

In case you haven't noticed, your arguments have been beaten down into little pieces and have been blown away by the wind of those calling for the truth to come out.

It's time for you to support the truth or stand aside, while others do the heavy lifting.

[mlo]

"Nufsed, I believe you, and concur that ALL SOS’s have a moral obligation to vet candidates, as well as a legal Constitutional duty to vet all National-level candidates, by proxy."

And I agree with this. A state official responsible for listing candidates on the ballot should make sure those candidates are eligible. It is not something to leave up to the parties to do voluntarily.

So if these aren't the rules now, let's get them changed before someone ineligible actually does get elected.

[mlo]

"You always take the least likely interpretation. You don't call some one an immigrant because their parents are immigrants. You refer to them as the son or daughter of immigrants or second generation."

Huh? No. It is the most likely interpretation. Yours requires that Bill Richardson know something nobody else knows. That's not the most likely interpretation.

[mlo]

"At this point, I'm very suspect of either your analytical skills or your motivation."

"In case you haven't noticed, your arguments have been beaten down into little pieces and have been blown away by the wind of those calling for the truth to come out."

No, my arguments have not been beaten down. The same people keeping saying I'm wrong, but anyone can do that.

And I believe you're the one that kept saying things were illogical that weren't. So if anyone's analytical skills were in question....

[BP2]

As I look at all of the cases against BHO and his questionable NBC status, as well as the legal precedence surrounding election cases, I note the following (”LANCE ET AL. v. MIKE COFFMAN, COLORADO” March 5, 2007, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-641.pdf).

NOTE: THIS LIES AT THE HEART OF THE "STANDING" ISSUE AT THE SCOTUS:

Immediately after Salazar was decided, four Colorado citizens—none of whom had participated in Salazar—filed the instant action in Federal District Court. They argued that Article V, §44, of the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, violates their rights under the Elections Clause.

The District Court initially determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but we vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U. S. 459 (2006) (per curiam). On remand, the District Court held that the citizen-plaintiffs had standing to bring their Elections Clause challenge. Lance v. Dennis, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1154– 1155 (2006). The court went on, however, to hold that the suit was barred by issue preclusion because the plaintiffs “stand in privity with the Secretary of State and the General assembly,” who were on the losing side in the Salazar litigation. 444 F. Supp. 2d, at 1161. The concurring judge concluded that appellants lacked standing to sue in the first place. Id., at 1162 (Porfilio, J., concurring in result). Plaintiffs appeal once again.

Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 94–95 (1998). [*Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.]” One component of the case-or-controversy requirement is standing,which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate the now-familiar elements of injury in fact, causation, and redressability. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). “We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest inproper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Id., at 573–574. See also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. ___, ___ (2006) (slip op., at 8) (refusing to create an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing for challenges to state tax or spending decisions, and observing that tax payer standing has been rejected “because the alleged injury is not ‘concrete and particularized,’ but instead a grievance the taxpayer ‘suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally’” (citation omitted).

Our refusal to serve as a forum for generalized grievances has a lengthy pedigree. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126 (1922), for example, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. We dismissed the suit because it was “not a case within the meaning of . . . Article III.” Id., at 129. The plaintiff sought to assert “only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted.” Ibid. “Obviously,” we held, “this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute [a suit] in the federal courts.” Id., at 129–130.

Our two decisions construing the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause do not contradict this holding. Each of these cases was filed by a relator on behalf of the State rather than private citizens acting on their own behalf, as is the case here. See State ex rel. Smiley v. Holm, 184 Min. 647, 238 N. W. 792 (1931) (per curiam), rev’d sub nom. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355 (1932); Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565 (1916).

In neither case did we address whether a private citizen had alleged a”concrete and particularized” injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III.

The WORK-AROUND:

Part of the answer may have been stumbled upon by Cort Wrotnowski on a radio show, reflected by Art. III, Sect 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treatboies made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)—between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. “

THERE'S LOTS OF ROOM IN THIS CLAUSE TO FIND ANY NUMBER OF WAYS TO DERIVE SCOTUS STANDING ON A CASE AGAINST BHO, EVEN NOW HE'S IN OFFICE... JUST USE YOUR IMAGINATION...

So, when some of us say here that "it's only a matter of time," they are exactly right... a case WILL push through using any number of ingenious "work arounds" and FORCE this issue and very soon too.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN. ;)

[nufsed]

We need two or three states to enact laws requiring their secretary of states to do this before 2012.

[penelopesire]

Bookmark for a later read. Thanks for the ping.

[BP2]

>>> We need two or three states to enact laws requiring their secretary of states to do this before 2012.

Oklahoma is working language on such a bill; so are others...

[nufsed]

So I’ ve read. If we can get a few states to do this, it will force him to make the documents public. Need to act sooner than later because the accused will fight it through the courts.