Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Birth Certificate’

News on the Berg lawsuit. The latest update from America’s Right is not the news I hoped for but it does bring up some interesting points. If one voter, or all voters, do not have standing who would? Why is there a constitutional requirement if we have no standing to ask for the law to be upheld?

I am very offended at the suggestion that the people have no right to expect their leaders or future leaders are in compliance with constitutional requirements. More on that later and besides I’m sure Berg will appeal and we will eventually get to the truth once and for all be it before or after the election. Mark my words even if Obama gets in office, should it be proved he is ineligible there will be legal consequences. We will not alow an unqualified president to stay seated. He will be impeached if this turns out to be the case.

 CQ

 http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.
Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollanderwere deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where “an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

“While the procedural evasions may be proper,” Berg said, “it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we’ve requested.”

 

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative–and about the Democratic Party nominee for president–with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.”The tape is in the native language there,” Berg said. “I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya.”

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick’s decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg said. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

 

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

 

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Hat tip to Citizen Wells where I found this link!

http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/Lawsuit_Sam_Reed/Press_Release_08_10_10.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address:
http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/peoplesvoice.html

Averting a Crisis in Confidence; Citizen files Lawsuit Against Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

Seattle WA. 10/9/2008 — Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City WA today filed suit in Washington State Superior Court against Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a “natural born” citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest should such certification, after the election, prove that Mr. Obama was not qualified for office.

The Complaint argues that the Secretary of State has the authority and duty to not only certify the voters but also and most importantly the candidates and in so doing prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters who would had had an opportunity to choose from qualified candidates had the certification preceded the election process.

At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records nor supporting hospital records. The Hawaii Health Department has violated Federal law by ignoring formal Freedom of Information requests for the same. Due to the facts and numerous other allegations that would challenge Mr. Obama’s fundamental qualifications for office, a Federal lawsuit was filed and is currently being heard in District Court, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Obama failed to respond to the District Court’s request to produce or allow access to the official documents (should they exist) and instead filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff had no “standing” or right to know. This non-response as of 9/24/2008 in Federal court casts doubt on the veracity of the electoral system and is the principal reason for this lawsuit. The late entry of this suit is due in principal part to Mr. Obama’s delay and subsequent non response to reasonable request for valid certificates. Multiple requests for early certification to the Office of the Secretary of State has been rejected. 

[clarification: The district court process itself demands a response from Mr. Obama. When a complaint is filed, the defendant has an opportunity to respond to the judge regarding the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. Obama did respond, but not with the requested documentation, not even minimally so. He responded with a motion for dismissal based on “standing” rather than the merits of the case]

The Washington Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Reed has not carried out that fundamental duty.

This lawsuit demands injunctive relief directing Sam Reed, Secretary of State, carry out the duty of his office in this regard answering the formal complaints for verification of Mr. Obama and any other candidate appearing on the ballots issues through his office for which formal complaints have been received.

Interested Parties may contact Plaintive as follows:
Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address:
peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address:
http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/peoplesvoice.html

 

I don’t know much about this yet but I plan to find out since it’s happening right here in my state. However this is at least the third state to have this type of suit filed besides Phillip Berg’s suit. Eventually even the Obama lovin’ media will have to start reporting this story.

Of course we must ask ourselves is there merit to this case as well as the Berg suit and others? Is Obama eligible to be the President of the United States? I don’t have the answers. I do think America deserves to know and I think Senator Obama should be a man and show the proof one way or the other to show the voters who deserve to know who they are voting for. I’m talking about theactual paper copy of his birth certificate and other documents that have been requested.

We don’t care to see the photo-shopped COLB that is on the Fight the Smears website as it has been proven to be a fake and there is definitely a conflict of interest between the Annenburg owned Fact Check and Senator Obama, who has served on the board of this organization and he was responsible for decisions on funds distributed by this organization.

Americans deserve to know the truth. Does Barrak Obama have the proof that he is eligible? Why doesn’t he just comply with the court and provide the documents?

Oh, and it is not racist to ask a candidate to prove his eligibility it is after all a requirement of law that we are talking about.

Then there is this: Thanks to reader Mabel for the link!

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/shocking-development-mrs-obama-decides-enough-is-enough-my-husband-was-born-in-hawaii-and-adopted-by-his-step-father-does-that-make-him-unpatriotic-she-asks-on-a-direct-telephone-to-api/

Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API.

Posted by africanpress on October 15, 2008

Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with. 

When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.”

 

 

 

I have no idea what to think about this. Although I would not find it hard to believe that Michelle’s mouth could get away from her as it has in the past. I have asked for verification as have many others. We will be watching this story. Below is a comment from Phil Berg left at the the site.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Says:
October 15, 2008 at 5:46 pm

This article confirms what I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, have been arguing for months for all of the citizens of the United States that Obama is “not” qualified to be President of the United States, as required by our U.S. Constitution!

Our U.S. Constitution states that the “qualifications” for President are: 1) be thirty-five [35] years of age; 2) live in the United States for fourteen [14] years; and 3) be a “natural born” citizen. Obama fulfills the 1st two “qualifications,” but fails in the 3rd.

If Obama’s wife, Michelle’s version is correct, she confirms what I alleged, that Obama was either “adopted” or “acknowledged” by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. Mrs. Obama states Obama was “adopted.”

The adoption means that when Obama returned to the United States, if he came through U.S. Immigration, Obama would only be “naturalized” and therefore ineligible to be President. If Obama did not go through U.S. Immigration, he would be an illegal alien and therefore not only be ineligible to be President, but also ineligible to be U.S. Senator from Illinois and subject to deportation.

Thank you – Michelle Obama !

 

So interesting that these things just keep popping up. Also interesting is the common reaction by the candidate and his supporters that Obama should not have to answer the question as if he were above the law and some how exempt from scrutiny.

My advice to Obama is this: If you want the voters to give you the highest job in the country then you should at least have enough respect for them to settle this matter and stop trying to circumvent the law.

CQ

 

Read Full Post »

Citizen Wells has a new post with some very revealing information about the vetting process where it concerns elected officials.

We have received a lot of question asking “How did Obama get this far, he must have had background checks as he is a U.S. Senator.”

However, this is inaccurate according to Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI. Background checks are not performed on those elected, once elected they work for Congress and are handed a secret clearance. See below:

This is a conversation between the Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI and Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2.

Caller – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

FBI – The short answer is no, no we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

Host – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?.

FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

Host – Even people running for president of the United States of America?.

FBI – That’s correct.

Host – That’s a little weird

FBI – Well, its part of democracy, its part of what the American people want, they want to be able to vote for somebody to represent them in Washington and they don’t want us to get in the way of that and we have no predilection to get in the way of that.

Host – Yeah, but what if they’re voting for a bad person and they don’t know that person is bad, do you follow me?. I’m saying, if the guy’s got a background and maybe he’s involved with some people that he shouldn’t be involved with, shouldn’t we know that as voters?.

FBI – Well, I think you’d agree that the American political process is about as rigorous as you’ll ever see and if there’s dirt back there, probably the opponent is gonna get it out probably before anyone else will.

Host – Now I know why you’re the head of the FBI, they’re good, aren’t they?.”

Read the whole post for more here.   http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimescom-colb-update-comments-insights-fbi-response-special-agent-in-charge-background-checks-elected-officials-american-political-process-berg-website-comments/

Now isn’t that an interesting little tidbit? Nobody does background checks or vetting in an official capacity on elected officials even candidates for President of the United States!

They figure it’s the discretion of the voters and that political campaigns will expose and vet candidates potential problems. In other words the people voted for them it’s up to them to make sure of who and what they really are.

So all the people out there saying the Birth Certificate thing is a non issue because he would have been checked out before running I guess that’s not the case at all. I suppose next they will “justify” why Obama should not have to show proof that he’s eligible for the job.

McCain faced similar questions and had at least the consideration for his supporters, the country and his own reputation to show proof and put the matter to rest. Will Obama do the same? Or will he continue to show us the fake COLB on his website even though it’s been examined and shown to be a forgery. Yet another crime that is going unpunished and “justified”!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

This information is coming to light through the blogger’s network. I think it is extremely important that we get the word out about this. We are NOT saying that Barrack Obama himself is involved although we don’t know either way I would highly doubt it. I don’t think he would be so stupid as to be personally involved in this kind of thing.  Having said that what is being said is that at least three seperate IP’s linked to the Blogger accounts that were shut down by a coordinated spam flagging attack were traced back to mybarrackobama.com by law enforcement and are currently being investigated.

Citizen Wells has an excellent post on the matter:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/obama-camp-stops-free-speech-democrat-party-left-wing-brown-shirts-nazi-germany-revisited-barackobamacom-fairness-doctrine-nancy-pelosi/#comment-3064

Here is another from bloggasm:

http://bloggasm.com/whos-responsible-for-shutting-down-a-number-of-anti-obama-blogspot-accounts#comment-77765

Finally here is a link to macsmind where the proof was uncovered:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/08/02/macsmind-hacking-update/#comment-47531

Truthfully I believe Senator Obama though he is not personally responsable, SHOULD DENOUNCE THIS KIND OF ABUSE OF THE INTERNET! I believe he should come out publicly and denounce this sort of behaviour and let people know it will not be tolerated on his official website. If he does not then he is by proxy condoning such behaviour!

This country was founded on the principals of freedom and justice for all. These freedoms include the right to free speech. If we have come to the point where free speech has become a luxury only to be enjoyed by those in power or those who can intimidate, harass, threaten and over-power the voices of the rest then we must act now to restore freedom before it’s too late!

It’s a very thin line these folks are walking. One blog, who shall not be named as I refuse to give them any more free publicity for thier disgusting site, makes no bones about the fact they feel they are free to post anything they want. I would agree with them to a point. That point, which they have gone way past, is where they feel they should be allowed this freedom but those who disagree with them are fodder for their jokes and their intimadation tactics, of which I myself have been subjected to and they include hateful and threatening posts, impersonating people I know in real life to send me threats and harassment. Impersonating me in other forums and blogs saying terrible things, claiming I will “never work again” (Funny since I am self employed. I don’t know who they think will fire me.)

They have called me a racist, a republican, bitter, xenophobic (This is really funny because the person posting that one seemed as though that word wuold be out of their normal vocabulary from the rest of the post.). They posted my personal information on their blog and all this because I visit the site of Larry Sinclair who they feel does not have a right to free speech.

As a matter of fact they are so against Larry Sinclair being allowed to express himself they have threatened his life, shut down his blogs with coordinated complaints and attacks, they have gone out of their way trying to have him arrested and have suceeded on one occasion so far, they have taken it upon themselves to call the Social Security Administration claiming that Larry is a fraud, a con man and should have his disability benefits (His only sorce of income. ) and his medical coverage denied.

So this is the rub. They are allowed to freely speak or write what they want but they are not allowed according to the law to stop someone else from excersising their own free speech. Nor are they allowed to try and interfere in someone’s life, job, financial situation or medical coverage! How is any of that OK by any standard?

Yes Obama supporters have the right to free speech. No they do not have the right to silence, harass or intimidate those who disagree!

Yes Larry Sinclair has a right to free speech. Yes Barrack Obama has the right to sue him if it is a lie.

No those idiots do not have the right to harass, intimidate and threaten Larry. No they do not have the right to interfere with his right to free speech, medical coverage and his lively hood just because they don’t believe him.

These people claim to be for freedom and the American way but it is not the American way at all to engage in such a thuggish and un-American behaviour.

We must expose these people/movements for what they really are bfore it is too late! If this kind of behaviour is tolerated even sanctioned by not only those who have the power to do something about it but also by the rest of us allowing this to stand then we will be seeing more of our hard won freedoms going by the wayside! We must stand up to the thugs and bullies and Senator Obama must do so also or he is guilty of condoning it by proxy!

Speak out people! Do not let this stuff stand!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Please sign these petitions and send them on to your friends and family. if john McCain who is a true American WAR HERO had to deal with questions about his birth and legitimacy then Obama is and should be held to the same standard! If he has nothing to hide then why they fake BC on his website?

John Mccain actually showed his birth certificate (the real one on paper not some fake on the net) to a reporter is Obama man enough to do the same???? I DARE YOU BARRACK!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/produce-obama-embossed-birth-certificate

This one is to impeach Obama for various legal reasons like recent drug use (at least ’99), ties to corrupt and anti-American people like Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, Auchi, Farrakan just to name a few!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment

We need to do everything we can NOW before it’s too late! If this moron gets elected somehow I fear we would not recognize our country within a year.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »