All of Obama's Legal Cases

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

[BP2]

338 Total Party matches for selection OBAMA, B
for ALL COURTS

Mon Feb 10 7:57:00 2009

Selections 1 through 54 (Page 1)

	Next 54

Civil Cases
	Name	Court	Case No.	Filed	NOS	Closed
1	OBAMA, B	ilcdce	3:2008cv03169	08/04/2008	440	08/15/2008
Armstead v. HSBC Card Services et al
2	OBAMA, B.	ilndce	1:2008cv04487	08/08/2008	550	09/23/2008
Luevano v. Obama et al
3	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2009cv00006	01/06/2009	441	01/27/2009
Roy v. Bush et al
4	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2009cv00041	01/29/2009	441
Roy v. Obama
5	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2008cv00362	08/11/2008	440	08/27/2008
Roy vs. USDC
6	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2008cv00424	09/22/2008	441	10/22/2008
Roy v. USA Govt et al
7	OBAMA, B. H.	hidce	1:2008cv00580	12/22/2008	441
Roy v. Obama et al
8	OBAMA, B.H.	hidce	1:2009cv00048	02/03/2009	440
Roy vs. Obama
9	OBAMA, B.H.	hidce	1:2008cv00448	10/08/2008	440	10/27/2008
Roy v. Federal Election Commission et al
10	OBAMA, BARACK	dedce	1:2009cv00014	12/29/2008	550
Gadson v. Obama et al
11	OBAMA, BARACK	nhdce	1:1997mc00024	12/04/1997	0	12/09/1997
WILSON MASTER FILE v. ALL DEFENDANTS, et al
12	OBAMA, BARACK	kyedce	3:2008cv00028	06/10/2008	530	07/11/2008
Becker v. Mukasey et al
13	OBAMA, BARACK	tnmdce	3:2008mc00036	02/01/2008		02/05/2008
Ervin v. Bush et al
14	OBAMA, BARACK	ilndce	1:2007cv00053	01/16/2007	550	01/16/2007
Awala v. Norgle et al
15	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2009cv00079	01/14/2009	550	01/14/2009
HYLAND v. OBAMA et al
16	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00088	01/14/2005	550	11/25/2005
RIVERA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
17	OBAMA, BARACK	candce	3:2007cv00109	01/09/2007	440
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. et al v. Bush et al
18	OBAMA, BARACK	nddce	3:2008cv00126	12/16/2008	330
Gleeson v. McDonald
19	OBAMA, BARACK	tnmdce	3:2008cv00146	02/12/2008	440	02/12/2008
Ervin v. Bush et al
20	OBAMA, BARACK	txwdce	5:2008cv00159	02/28/2008	440	03/18/2008
Smith v. University of Texas At Austin et al
21	OBAMA, BARACK	nhdce	1:2008cv00185	05/09/2008	530	06/10/2008
Becker v. Blightler et al
22	OBAMA, BARACK	flndce	1:2007cv00187	09/28/2007	440	10/06/2008
MORRIS v. BUSH et al
23	OBAMA, BARACK	caedce	1:2006cv00195	02/22/2006	530	04/10/2006
(HC) Thomas v. Federal Congress et al
24	OBAMA, BARACK	flndce	1:2008cv00208	09/26/2008	440	12/12/2008
MORRIS v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO et al
25	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00270	02/04/2005	530	04/09/2007
EL-MASHAD et al v. BUSH et al
26	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2008cv00284	03/20/2008	441
Bloom et al v. The Democratic National Committe et al
27	OBAMA, BARACK	mndce	0:2008cv00360	02/11/2008	440	03/19/2008
Sinclair v. Obama et al
28	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00492	03/10/2005	530	04/09/2007
AZIZ et al v. BUSH et al
29	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00569	03/18/2005	530	04/09/2007
SALAHI et al v. BUSH et al
30	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00748	04/11/2005	530	05/30/2007
ABOASSY et al v. BUSH et al
31	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00765	04/15/2005	530
HABASHI et al v. BUSH et al
32	OBAMA, BARACK	ilndce	1:1996cv00823	02/13/1996	440	03/04/1996
Ewell v. Bd of Elect Comm, et al
33	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv00877	05/03/2005	530	04/09/2007
KHIALI-GUL v. BUSH et al
34	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	8:2008cv00948	03/20/2008	441	05/28/2008
Bloom et al v. The Democratic National Committe et al
35	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2007cv00964	10/11/2007	440	11/26/2007
Herbert v. United States of America et al
36	OBAMA, BARACK	paedce	2:2006cv01055	03/09/2006	550	07/26/2006
RICHES v. BUSH et al
37	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01124	06/07/2005	530	05/30/2007
MOUSOVI et al v. BUSH et al
38	OBAMA, BARACK	miwdce	1:2008cv01154	12/08/2008	440	01/06/2009
Hyland #228879 v. Levin et al
39	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2008cv01164	12/04/2008	440
Herbert v. Obama et al
40	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01189	06/14/2005	530	04/09/2007
KHALIFH et al v. BUSH et al
41	OBAMA, BARACK	flmdce	3:2008cv01201	12/15/2008	440	01/21/2009
Herbert v. United States of America et al
42	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01224	07/17/2008	530
GUL v. BUSH et al
43	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01228	07/17/2008	530
HADI v. BUSH et al
44	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01232	07/17/2008	530
BIN ATEF v. BUSH et al
45	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01237	07/17/2008	530
AL WADY v. BUSH et al
46	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01353	07/05/2005	530	05/09/2007
SAIB et al v. BUSH et al
47	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2008cv01430	08/18/2008	550	09/11/2008
THORNTON-BEY v. OBAMA
48	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01487	06/13/2008	530
SADKHAN v. BUSH et al
49	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01497	07/29/2005	530
AL WIRGHI et al v. BUSH et al
50	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01506	07/28/2005	530	05/15/2007
SHAFIIQ et al v. BUSH et al
51	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2005cv01592	08/09/2005	530
ATTASH et al v. BUSH et al
52	OBAMA, BARACK	moedce	4:2008cv01757	11/12/2008	550	01/08/2009
Towne v. Obama
53	OBAMA, BARACK	dcdce	1:2006cv01758	07/31/2008	530
SULIMAN et al v. BUSH et al
54	OBAMA, BARACK	candce	M:2006cv01791	08/14/2006	440
In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

Next 54 ALL of Obama, Soetoro Court Cases on Scribd

[nufsed]

LOL!

[Cyropaedia]

Correct.

When you have a Certification of Live Birth, and a Certificate of Live Birth, the Certificate is considered the *source* document.

[Red Steel]

Indeed. When they say it requires “further verification” it is quite obvious that they are looking for reliability not content

I just want to repeat the words. ;-)

[BP2]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are only interested in sparring points, not in the facts.

A Sophist who's weak in facts, calling the game because the opposition is "sparring points." LOL -- now that is funny.

On the bottom of the CertificaTION of Life Birth it says: "This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]."

Prima facie evidence only goes so far. Prima facie evidence merely establishes a presumption of the veracity of the evidence offered. It does not make the truthfulness of evidence absolute. Prima facie evidence can be disproved by evidence offered to the contrary, some of which we've seen... BUT has been poorly executed by some of the attorneys involved filing against Obama. They are learning from their mistakes and it's only a matter of time before they get it right -- the reckoning begins.

The fact BHO is successfully exploited the loopholes in Hawaiian Law 338, federal election law and the NBC clause of the US Constitution is shameful. Bravo for him. However, he WILL get called on it.

[TigersEye]

Yes, and as you say the Certificate would provide nothing further in the way of establishing proof of the family lineage than what could be found on the Certification.

[TigersEye]

I think the DoH was quite clear. They did a good job on their website, using precise language, to save themselves as well as the people they serve as much hassle as possible. They would be in for all kinds of grief if they put “native” Hawaiian’s through hoops unnecessarily.

[Michael Michael]

It's par for the course for him. I showed mlo the words of two Senators who wrote the 14th Amendment specifically the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant. He contradicted the meaning of what the those two Senators said in plain language.

Explain to me why Howard, who actually wrote the citizenship clause, had absolutely no objection (nor did any other Senator) to this understanding of the citizenship clause as related by Senator Conness:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese immigrants in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.

Clearly it is stated here that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants are considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore citizens of the United States by birth.

Senator Howard spoke immediately after Senator Conness. Howard offered no objection whatsoever. Nor, again, did any other Senator.

[TigersEye]

Now that the deliberate obfuscations have been swept aside we can back to the original question...

If these agencies (and there are other examples if you take the time to do your homework) think the "Certification of Live Birth" does not rise to their level of "evidence" required to prove birth, why are YOU so willingly eager to accept it?

[Michael Michael]

If these agencies (and there are other examples if you take the time to do your homework) think the "Certification of Live Birth" does not rise to their level of "evidence" required to prove birth, why are YOU so willingly eager to accept it?

Because I've not seen a scrap of credible evidence that Obama was born anyplace other than Hawaii.

[TigersEye]

Clearly it is stated here that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants are considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore citizens of the United States by birth.

Clearly it is not thus stated. In regards to both CA law and Federal law the issue is prefaced with the word "proposed" meaning that it was not (at the time it was said) the current law in either case except that he was speaking retrospectively regarding CA law.

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese immigrants in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.

[TigersEye]

You haven’t seen a scrap that he was either.

[Red Steel]

We've gone over this before. This was posted to you a few days ago where you did not answer the post. It's clear, that the conversation between Senators Howard and Trumball, where Trumball clarified what Senator Howard said earlier:

--------------------------

"Sorry, but it says born within the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Here's what Sen. Trumball said to Sen Howard :

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Howard agreed. Trumball also said,

“It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…”

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means only those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States. Not "owing allegiance to anyone else" applies to native Americans as well foreigners from other countries.

During the debate over the Naturalization Act of 1870, there were Representatives that argued that the 14th Amendment did provide foreigners a de-facto right to obtain citizenship. This contention was not disputed."

[BP2]

Yes, and as you say the Certificate would provide nothing further in the way of establishing proof of the family lineage than what could be found on the Certification.

Prima facie exists to show who the father was (even though it certainly could be someone else). But let's work with what we have for now. See here on page 3:

Dunham - Obama Sr - Divorce Decree 1964

So as far as I'm concerned, I want to see the "original birth certificate" to note the birthplace and date of birth. The date of birth is more important, for reasons not obvious to the casual observer ...

[BP2]

>>> ... why are YOU so willingly eager to accept it?

Thanks — I was wanting to get back to that question, as well!

[Michael Michael]

You haven’t seen a scrap that he was either.

I have indeed seen scraps that he was. Credible scraps, not wild assumptions made by people hatching all manner of unsubstantiated theories on blogs.

I have seen scanned images and photographs of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth for which there has been no credible evidence indicating that it is anything other than the genuine article.

I have seen the notice of birth published in the Honolulu Advertiser days after his birth from information provided by the Hawaii Department of Health.

I have seen representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health state that they have a birth certificate on file, and that he was born in Hawaii.

Nothing offered up by those claiming he wasn't born in Hawaii has come even remotely close to any of this.

[little jeremiah]

Bookmark.

[Red Steel]

A short time after the adoption of 14th amendment, the Empire of China had a treaty with the US.

I'll write for verbatim from a hard copy I have.

"In Fong Yue Ting v U.S. (1893), above cited, this court said: 'Chinese persons not born in this country have never been recognized as citizens of the United States, nor authorized to become such under the naturalization laws. '149 U.S. 716, 13 sup. Ct. 1023.

The convention between the United States and China of 1894 provided that 'Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have the protection of their property all rights given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.' 28 Stat 1211.

You're correct , that "proposal" was just that.

[DMZFrank]

I would rather hear her explain what she meant in HER OWN WORDS under oath, thank you vEry much.

[Michael Michael]

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means only those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States. Not "owing allegiance to anyone else" applies to native Americans as well foreigners from other countries.

No, it only applied to those born to Indians and those born to foreign ambassadors and other diplomats residing in the US. This is made rather clear by the complete lack of objection to Senator Conness' remarks on those born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants.

The remarks by Trumbull came out of the extensive debate over Indians (as it was proposed that the citizenship clause include "excluding Indians not taxed"). Indians were a special case, and ultimately the children born to Indians were treated in the same way as children born to ambassadors and other diplomats residing in the United States.

Howard makes this quite clear when he says:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

[little jeremiah]

BTTT for great information.