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

[DMZFrank]

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

[Michael Michael]

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?

[sometime lurker]

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.

[Cyropaedia]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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.

[Red Steel]

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.

[thecodont]

Good summary.

[Cyropaedia]

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.

[TigersEye]

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

[TigersEye]

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

[Michael Michael]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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.

[Red Steel]

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.

[TruthWillWin]

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?

[Red Steel]

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

[Red Steel]

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.

[mlo]

"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.

[mlo]

"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*.

[mlo]

"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.

[mlo]

"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.