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

[little jeremiah]

Anyone who claims that representatives stated that they have a birth certificate on file and that he was born in HI, plus that he has SEEN them say this - wowie zowie, that’s either breaking news, or a lie!

[Michael Michael]

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.

I have.

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

You're right. It's just the opposite. "Embassadors and foreign ministers" modifies "foreigners, aliens."

It does not include those born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens.

What foreigners, aliens?

Those who belong to the families of embassadors and foreign ministers.

Anyway, I've had enough of your word games. We don't have to parse sentences. We have the following fact about which you persist in obfuscating.

Just after Howard introduces the citizenship clause, Senator Cowan asks Howard specifically what citizenship means. And specifically asks if the child born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in California are to be citizens of the United States.

Senator Howard does not reply. Instead Senator Conness of California does, and declares that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in California are indeed to be considered citizens of the United States.

Senator Howard is the next to speak after Conness.

Does he offer any objection to Conness' declaration that the children of non-citizen Chinese in California be considered citizens of the United States, and not "foreigners, aliens" as you claim Howard intends in his statement?

If Howard had intended as such, he most certainly would have objected and set Senator Conness straight. However he did not. Nor did any other Senator. Howard simply notes a typo in the amendment.

The debate then became centered exclusively on Indians, in response to Senator Doolittle's proposal that "excluding Indians not taxed" be added to the citizenship clause.

[Red Steel]

What is your agenda for posting on the FreeRepublic?

His agenda is obviously to hide the truth from coming out.

Obama could straighten this situation out at anytime if he came clean but he doesn't. Obama must have been born overseas.

[Michael Michael]

These were posted on the internet. Does it bother you that no-one responsible for verifying his eligibility has seen the actual document?

What bothers me, or rather what I think is most telling as to peoples' real motives, is that not one of those who had been claiming it was a forgery ever bothered to go to Chicago and ask to see the document for themself, even though it had been known publicly since last August that the paper document was kept at Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago.

This tells me that those who have been claiming it's a forgery are doing nothing more than playing politics while disingenuously wrapping themselves in the Constitution. And I don't care for people exploiting the Constitution for political purposes.

Are you satisfied that only internet postings are being used to show the POTUS is eligible?

I can't think of any other practical means of displaying to the public at large evidence that the candidate was born in Hawaii. I certainly don't expect the candidate to pay the government of Hawaii to produce 150 million certificates and have them mailed to every household in the country.

And given that I have not seen any credible evidence that Obama was born anyplace other than Hawaii and that the Certification of Live Birth is anything but the genuine article, then yes, I am satisfied.

But the question still stands. Why did none of those claiming the document was a fake ever bother to go to Chicago and ask to see it themself? I can't imagine why anyone with any sincere desire to try and get at the truth would not have done so.

The only thing that seems to make sense as to why they did not is that they were afraid that they might not have been turned away. That they might well have been shown the document and not find anything wrong with it and they would no longer have that issue to use to whip people up into a political frenzy about.

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?

I believe mlo has previously cited reference to their saying that it does say he was born in Hawaii. I didn't bother to bookmark it or anything so perhaps mlo can chime in or you can ask him directly.

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

Provide it to whom exactly?

What is your agenda for posting on the FreeRepublic?

What is your agenda for posting on the FreeRepublic?

I haven't any agenda.

[Cyropaedia]

More nonsense.

Representative Sargent (of California) made those remarks within the context of the Naturalization Act of 1870. He was talking about immigrants from foreign countries; -because that it who the legislation would apply to.

[Michael Michael]

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.

The court declared that he was a citizen, even though he had never been naturalized. So he couldn't have been deemed by the court to have been anything but a natural born citizen as this country has never recognized any but two types of citizenship. Citizenship by birth, which is natural born citizenship, and citizenship by naturalization.

There is, nor has there ever been, a third teir of citizenship in the United States.

[Michael Michael]

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

Furthermore, Howard had absolutely no objection to those born to non-citizen Chinese parents in California to be citizens of the United States.

You can keep ignoring this fact, but it doesn't make it go away.

[Cyropaedia]

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

Again, that is not why additional work and research is required to corroborate the Certification of Live Birth. Extra work and verification (as well as money) are required to establish that you actually were born in Hawaii.

[Michael Michael]

Representative Sargent (of California) made those remarks within the context of the Naturalization Act of 1870. He was talking about immigrants from foreign countries; -because that it who the legislation would apply to.

I'm well aware of that fact.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that the Naturalization Act of 1870 only related to NATURALIZATION. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with who was a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

Now look at Sargent's quote again:

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.

All he's saying here is that the Fourteenth Amendment never said that immigrants from foreign countries had any RIGHT to come here and become NATURALIZED.

Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with who was a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

So what exactly is your point here?

[TigersEye]

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

A Certificate of Live Birth, the long form BC, is not proof of when and where the parents were born. It would be useless for what you are claiming the DoH wants it for.

[Red Steel]

What foreigners, aliens?

The subject may have been about Indians, but this does include OTHER foreigners and aliens and is not only about the diplomat and ambassador crowd. Saying it only applies to Indians is being disingenuous.

But Trumbull's words spell out what exactly what it means to be "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Mr. Trumbull: "Of course my opinion is not better than any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestion of the Senator from Wisconsin [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, are citizens."...

What we mean by the "Subject to jurisdiction of the United States? Not owning allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Not one Senator objected to the meaning of Senator Trumbull's words - no one objected.

A slam dunk! There's is noway you can get around the meaning and intent of "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"

And it doesn't ONLY apply to Indian tribes. Obama has never been subjected to the complete jurisdiction of the United States OR not owning allegiance to anyone else!

Obama was a British subject, a Kenyan citizen, and most likely retains his Indonesian citizenship. Therefore, Obama cannot be a natural born citizen.

[Red Steel]

You can keep ignoring this fact, but it doesn't make it go away.

You cannot ignore the fact that Obama is hiding his past origins from the public. The questions about Obama's birth place are not going away.

I further elaborated about post 392 in the post above this one.

[Michael Michael]

A Certificate of Live Birth, the long form BC, is not proof of when and where the parents were born. It would be useless for what you are claiming the DoH wants it for.

A Certificate of Live Birth includes the birthplace of both the mother and the father.

That is the additional information that is of interest to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, that is not included on the Certification of Live Birth.

[Red Steel]

The court never declared ARK a natural born citizen they couldn’t since his parents were Chinese Emperor subjects.

Wong Kim Ark was a narrow ruling they ONLY went so far is to call him citizen. And in noway does the court ruling settle the natural born citizen issue as it pertains to being president.

[TigersEye]

It has that information but it is not proof and that is what DoH requires. The long form is only proof of when and where the individual whose birth it records was born. Stop playing like you’re dumb.

[Michael Michael]

The subject may have been about Indians, but this does include OTHER foreigners and aliens and is not only about the diplomat and ambassador crowd. Saying it only applies to Indians is being disingenuous.

You're taking my words out of context. You seem to be quite good at that.

When I said "What foreigners, aliens?" I was referring to the "foreigners, aliens" that Howard mentioned. And I didn't say he was referring to Indians, I said he was referring only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

But Trumbull's words spell out what exactly what it means to be "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

And he was speaking in the context of INDIANS.

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." Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing any allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense? Is it not understood that that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty? The Senator himself has brought us a great many treaties this session in order to get control of those people.

You cannot take what was said specifically with regard to Indians, who were a distinctly different class of people compared to immigrants (again, they were considered more akin to ambassadors in diplomats), and assume that those words were intended to apply to immigrants and those born to immigrants or other non-citizens.

To do so is to do simply propagandize.

The facts of the matter are these:

First, those words were stated specifically with regard to Indians who were in a class distinctly different from that of immigrants.

Second, those words were never stated specifically with regard to immigrants.

Third, it was stated by Senator Conness that it was understood that under the amendment that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in California were indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore would be citizens of the United States by having been born in the United States.

Fourth, neither Senators Howard nor Trumbull took any exception whatsoever to this stated understanding of the amendment as expressed by Senator Conness, nor did any other Senator.

Therefore it is rather obviously clear that the originator of the citizenship clause himself understood it to mean just as Senator Conness had expressed it to mean, and that those born in the United States save for Indians and ambassadors and other diplomats, were citizens of the United States by birth regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And it is also just as rather clearly obvious that you are doing little more than playing disingenuous word games for the purpose of promulgating some sort of political agenda.

[Michael Michael]

You cannot ignore the fact that Obama is hiding his past origins from the public. The questions about Obama's birth place are not going away.

You see? You continue to obfuscate and ignore the fact.

[Michael Michael]

The court never declared ARK a natural born citizen they couldn’t since his parents were Chinese Emperor subjects.

You're arguing the dissenting opinion. It is not the dissenting opinions which hold sway in our jurisprudence.

The dissenting opinion in the narrow ruling in US v. Lopez, declared that the federal Gun Free School Zone Act, which among other things made it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school zone, was constitutional under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Should that dissenting opinion be used to argue in favor of federal gun control laws?

Didn't think so.

[Michael Michael]

The court never declared ARK a natural born citizen they couldn’t since his parents were Chinese Emperor subjects.

Oh yes, one other thing.

They declared Ark a citizen by virtue of his having been born in the United States. Again, the United States has never recognized any citizenship except that by birth and that by naturalization. Since Ark was declared a citizen by birth, and not by naturalization, ultimately, he could not have been declared anything but a natural born citizen.

[Red Steel]

You're taking my words out of context. You seem to be quite good at that.

And you're not grasping the larger meaning of the 14th Amendment.

And he was speaking in the context of INDIANS.

There's noway on earth you can get around the "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" the meaning and intent behind those words. They not only apply to the Indians but those words also apply to citizens, foreigners, aliens, and all other stripes. The context of those words go much farther than Indian tribes. They meaning and intent, as posted above, will endure as long as there is an United States.

If those words in the 14th Amendment were only for Indians the authors should have state as such. They didn't because they don't.