Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Cazza La Randa, Nov 27, 2008.

  1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138828/posts

    No. 08-570 Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: October 31, 2008 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (08-4340) Rule 11

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.

    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134 Lafayette Hill, PA 09867 Party name: Philip J. Berg Attorneys for Respondents: Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217 United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
     
  2. Berg tried to stop the election, which was not going to take place. The question now, will the Justices actually request Obama show his CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH?

    Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

    If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship. “I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”

    Most of all and in my ever so humble opinion, this should have never been an issue or taken this route. Seems the person running for president of the United States would know they had to be a natural born citizen and this was a given until the Democrats decided to implement a political "coup de etat". With Democrats around, there can never be any loopholes with anything.

    18 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:39:58 PM by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
     
  3. Supreme court ruling on Obama’s eligibility for presidency
    By Janitsar on Nov 18th, 2008



    Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

    A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that “No person except a natural born citizen …
    shall be eligible to the office of President…”

    What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama’s place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.

    Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.

    The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature.

    The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

    Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:

    • The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;

    • The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

    • The allegation that Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

    • The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

    • The allegations that “Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya,” the suit states.” Reports reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth.”

    • The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;

    Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack’s American citizenship.

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
     
  4. Maybe it's about the drama... Obama produces the paper and takes on the air of untouchability......
     
  5. I'm confused..that Supreme Court . gov link above shows that Souter denied the appellation of the Writ on Nov.3rd.
    Can this really be true? SCOTUS is actually going to review this case?
    wow...
     
  6. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.

    Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?

    Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?

    Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

    Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

    Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.

    Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

    * The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
    * It isn't signed.
    * No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
    * In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
    * The certificate number is blacked out.
    * The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
    * The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

    Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg


    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

    You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

    The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

    The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

    The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

    We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg


    Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.

    We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."

    We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

    In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/

    The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
    Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

    Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

    When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."
     
  7. Cesko

    Cesko

    With regards to the last post. WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF STARTING THIS THREAD?????
     
  8. Short the ES with max leverage? :)
     


  9. Here is the latest on it:

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm



    Dr. Polarik's final report is the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research, the sole purpose of which has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate.

    In his report, Dr. Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters, provides conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Petersburg Times, and Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document.

    Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President.
     
  10. This nonsense from bush voting imbeciles belongs in chit chat.


    Idiotas.
     
    #10     Nov 27, 2008