Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All of Obama's Legal Cases
US Courts System ^ | 2/10/2009 | US Courts

Posted on 02/10/2009 7:27:57 AM PST by 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 54Next 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 54Next 54

ALL of Obama, Soetoro Court Cases on Scribd



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatruthfile; president; tinfoilhats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 501-502 next last
To: little jeremiah

You’re quite welcome. Now go forth and SPREAD THE WORD!!!!


401 posted on 02/11/2009 9:03:51 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: 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.


What is your point here?

What you quote here simply says that Chinese who were not born here ("here" being the United States), could not be naturalized as US citizens.

It does not refer to those who are born here to non-citizen Chinese. Those who were born here to non-citizen Chinese were US citizens by birth.

So what exactly is your point?


402 posted on 02/11/2009 9:04:55 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

I’ve said this before on another thread - I’ve delivered babies and I don’t remember any details about mothers or babies from 20 years ago, only the medical issues. A 17 year old giving birth is not memorable - a 13 year old is, and I delivered a few of those and don’t recall anything about them, either. You are expecting feats of memories from medical personnel that are very unusual.

It’s different in a small community where the docs and nurses repeatedly encounter mother and children. In a large city, unless there is a continuing relationship, people won’t remember.


403 posted on 02/11/2009 9:05:53 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

P. A. Madison gives an outstanding analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment's original intent.

From the article:

"Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion."

Simply being born here does not confer automatic citizenship.

The "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is NOT a redundant clause. People need to thoroughly understand that.

404 posted on 02/11/2009 9:07:19 PM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
From the article:

"Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion."

Simply being born here does not confer automatic citizenship.


This is just another example of basing a conclusion on comments made in an entirely different context.

Read what it says. It says "the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship..."

The only way an ALIEN obtains citizenship is by NATURALIZATION. That's because ALIENS are those who are NOT BORN HERE. And THAT'S what is being referred to here. What the argument was is that someone born in a foreign country, had no right to come here and be NATURALIZED as a US citizen.

And this is PRECISELY what the treaty with China was all about. It agreed that Chinese, i.e. those born in China, who came to the US as immigrants, could NOT become NATURALIZED as US citizens. And what was being argued here is that the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer any such right.

This has absolutely nothing to do with those who are BORN here.

The only ones BORN here who were aliens were those born to ambassadors and diplomats.


405 posted on 02/11/2009 9:24:59 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
The point is self explanatory. The Chinese at the time by treaty, and court ruling, were not allowed to become naturalized. As does my post to you in #392 which contradicts you although you obviously disagree.

When Howard used those words "foreigner" and "alien" on page 2990 of 'The 'Congressional Globe' is also self evident.

406 posted on 02/11/2009 9:27:49 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Good summary.


407 posted on 02/11/2009 9:34:24 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
Wrong. It is possible to be born here and "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Both criteria have to be met. That is why they wrote down both clauses. They weren't just talking about the children of Ambassadors, for example.

They citizenship clause deals with persons "born" (or "naturalized") and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Thus, being born here does not confer automatic citizenship.

408 posted on 02/11/2009 9:35:28 PM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Yeah, OK. You have a huge double standard when it comes to “evidence.” That’s your prerogative.


409 posted on 02/11/2009 9:39:42 PM PST by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Don’t mix up separate arguments. It just helps those trying to bury the points you are making.


410 posted on 02/11/2009 9:42:12 PM PST by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The point is self explanatory. The Chinese at the time by treaty, and court ruling, were not allowed to become naturalized.

Yes. But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is that the only people who would become NATURALIZED are those who WERE NOT BORN HERE.

When Howard used those words "foreigner" and "alien" on page 2990 of 'The 'Congressional Globe' is also self evident.

Yes, it is self-evident that he was referring to those children born to ambassadors and diplomats.

You are simply playing word games when you attempt to separate "foreigners, aliens" form "who belong to embassadors and foreign ministers." There is no conjunction anywhere in the phrase. He is merely restating the common law practice that considers the children of ambassadors and diplomats to be aliens, and not citizens of the United States.


411 posted on 02/11/2009 9:48:28 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
Wrong. It is possible to be born here and "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Yes. If you were born to an ambassador or other diplomat, or, at the time, to an Indian. Then you were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Otherwise, you were indeed subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

They weren't just talking about the children of Ambassadors, for example.

Again, there is no conjunction anywhere in that phrase. The "foreigners, aliens" being referred to were those children born to ambassadors and other diplomats.


412 posted on 02/11/2009 9:54:01 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
Yes, it is self-evident that he was referring to those children born to ambassadors and diplomats.

You better read it out loud, in context, starting about 15 to 20 lines above the statement Howard is listing who is not citizens. Remember to pause between the commas.

The words 'foreigners' and 'aliens' does not modify the following clause that contains the words ambassadors and ministers.

413 posted on 02/11/2009 10:00:27 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
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.

These were posted on the internet. Does it bother you that no-one responsible for verifying his eligibility has seen the actual document? Are you satisfied that only internet postings are being used to show the POTUS is eligible?

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.

I've seen where Hawaii DOH representatives say a BC is on file but have never seen any of them say that BC says he was born in Hawaii. Did this happen recently?

Do you want Obama to provide a copy of his long form vault copy as has been requested?

What is your agenda for posting on the FreeRepublic?

414 posted on 02/11/2009 10:08:22 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Furthermore, Senator Trumball clarifies Senator Howard’s words as posted in # 392.


415 posted on 02/11/2009 10:10:05 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
It does not refer to those who are born here to non-citizen Chinese. Those who were born here to non-citizen Chinese were US citizens by birth.

So what exactly is your point?

More to the point,... Wong Kim Ark could never have been a natural born citizen since his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China who never became U.S citizens.

416 posted on 02/11/2009 10:26:30 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

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

Fine, but that's got nothing to do with where we are right now. What we have is what she did say. And after listening to both tapes it appears she never said Obama was born in Kenya. It's yet another thing the birthers made up.

417 posted on 02/11/2009 10:28:52 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"And he told you why mlo. He said Hawaii needs more information."

I told him that. They need more information about ANCESTRY. They do not reject the COLB as proof of birth. This really isn't that hard to understand, unless you just don't want to.

"There are two reason why Hawaii does not except that computer generated form: "

They don't reject it.

"1) There's not enough info on it to determine native origin, which Hawaii says plainly."

What have I been saying? It's not enough to prove native ANCESTRY. Not the applicant's own native birth, but his ancestor's birth is at issue.

The only thing the COLB says about your parents is their name. They need to know more *about the parents*.

418 posted on 02/11/2009 10:33:39 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
"The problem is that there's really nothing additional listed on the Certificate of Live Birth that really helps them actually determine "ancestry"."

Of course! That's what the program is about.

"That is what the extra work and charges involved with the Certification are about; to fully corroborate that you actually were born in Hawaii (for starters)."

No, the short form proves birth in Hawaii, for the person it is for. But that's not enough for this program.

419 posted on 02/11/2009 10:36:35 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"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."

Well I wonder why. Probably because I can show you a mess of legal opinion that explains what "under the jurisdiction" means. Including rulings from the Supreme Court. But hey, ignore all that. You found a speech from a Senator. What's the law next to that?

You are picking out fragments from any text you can find that you think supports the opinion you already want to believe. It is not what the law is.

420 posted on 02/11/2009 10:39:55 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 501-502 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson