Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Fraud’

For those following the Chester Arthur story that I stole shamelessly from Leo Donofrio’s site where he has done some impressive research there is an update. Chester Arthur lied and burned his papers because his father was not a naturalized US citizen until August 31, 1843. So Chester, 14 years old at the time, was NOT a “natural born citizen” and as such was not eligible to serve as either President or Vice President as he would have had to be born to two US citizens to meet that qualification.

If you have not read about this fascinating but mostly unknown piece of our country’s history you’ll want to start here:  https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/this-is-not-the-first-time-this-country-has-faced-this-issue/ 

For the rest of the story here is a link to Leo’s site where he continues with the evidence that was turned up by his extensive research complete with a link to the actual naturalization record for Chester’s father, William Arthur.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

Here’s an excerpt:

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of  “Chester Allan Arthur”, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006  ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792  192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress.   He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843.  But Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations  started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.   It was bunk.  It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont.   But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

There’s more, much more but you’ll have to follow the links. Trust me it’s well worth it and for a lawyer Leo writes in a very easy to understand style. You won’t need to wade through any lawyer-speak I promise!

While it’s very interesting it also has some very clear parallels to the current situation that is moving through our courts now. Indeed if anything it proves the point that the intent of the founders was to have no Commander in Chief with divided loyalties.

Yes, I have heard the SCOTUS denied the stay filed by Leo Donofrio but I also know this is not the only case and there are at least two more being moved through the SCOTUS right now. Not to mention several other cases at the state level. The court has not given a reason for their denial of Mr. Donofrio’s case but Leo himself says it may be because of some filing errors.

All I can say is these people, the Supreme Court Justices are sworn to uphold, protect and defend our constitution and the law of our land and if they fail to do so they should also be prepared for the consequences. Lawyers are already talking about how they will fight any laws signed by The Great Fraudulent One and how it could be used as a defense in many cases should the truth come out and confirm what most of us already believe to be true.

I cannot believe they did not choose to hear the case even if soley for the purpose of insuring this uncertainy never happens again, that we have a set method for assuring the American voters that the candidates on the ballot are eligible to hold the office they are running for.

We need a method of verification and we need a method for holding people accountable. If nothing else to insure Roger Calero or another non-citizen does not manage to get on the ballot again. If they are more concerned about “upsetting the apple cart” than they are about insuring our laws are complied with and the public is not being duped then they should perhaps step down and allow some more impartial judges to take over.

Not only is this a constitutional crisis if  Obama is ineligible, it is a crisis of faith. Simply put how can the voter have faith in the system, the laws, courts or any office holder if the court declines to establish that the highest office in the land is not gained through illegal and illicit means? Voter confidence is out the window and down the drain if they cannot even count on the highest court in the land to safeguard this.

When people lose faith and confidence in their officials and in their courts can revolution be far behind?

CQ

Read Full Post »

Apparently the earth is coming to it’s end! Got up this morning and turned on the news for a check of the weather and what did I see?

An actual MSM outlet (NBC) reporting that the Supreme Court will hold a conference today regarding the eligibility status of Obama! Of course they also said they it was “unlikely that the court will hear the case”.

I literally almost fell off the couch and I’m thankfull I was not sipping my morning coffee at the time! I screamed “Oh my God! It’s on the news!” while clutching my husband’s arm.

After months and months of people trying to get MSM to report what’s going on why now?

Easy answer is that they did not want to take the chance that they would be wrong and the Supreme Court might actually agree to hear the case. They would look like exactly what they are. Biased and in the tank. Can’t just let people find out they have not been doing their jobs. (Eyes rolling!) Like we haven’t seen that for the entire election cycle from the primaries up through the general election.

Most people have known for a long time they are not interested in doing their jobs or the truth. Only getting the Big Zero elected.

Some have even called them O’s 527 groups. That’s how obvious their bias and lack of integrity, proffessionalism and journalistic standards has been.

OMG! They are doing an in-depth report now as I type! Of course it’s a bunch of hooey! They are claiming the  COLB on his website is proof and that Hawaii “said” he was born there. Not true.

In fact Hawaii verified that he has a long form Birth Certificate, or Certificate of Live Birth, far different and more detailed than the Certification of Live Birth he has posted on Fight the Smears, that it is on file and they have seen it. They have not said that it verifies he was born there because by their own admssion they cannot divulge that information without either the permission of Obama or a court order requiring them to release it.

Actually, the state of Hawaii does not even accept the short form Certification of Live Birth for verification purpses in order to recieve state benifits because there is not sufficient information to verify squat on the document presented by Obama as “proof” of his citizenship status.

Also Hawaii allows for registration of births for a period of up to one year after the birth and because they allow persons born out of state and even out of the country to register birth records with the state and recieve, get this, a Certification of Live Birth rather than a Certificate of Birth which contains such information as actual place of birth, hospital, signature of witnesses, signature of attending physician and more. Don’t believe  me? Fine. Here it is from The State of Hawaii’s own website.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country (applies to adopted children). 

 

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

 

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8.  A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

 

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error.  See, for example, HRS 338-17.

 

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

 

F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.  From its web site:  “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL

So there it is in black and white with links to the actual laws. As you can see the state even admits that the system is subject to errors and that even a person born out of the state or out of the United States can apply for and receive a  “Birth Certificate” in Hawaii. It does not prove they were “natural born citizens” of either Hawaii or the US. In fact ONLY the information contained on the long form Certificate of Live Birth can verify that. Apparently there is a vast difference between the Certificate and a Certification.

For a more detailed report on this and why it matters read this post from American Thinker.

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.  That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.  Unlikely, but possible.

C.  The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.  Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children.  Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life. 

1. We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today.  However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals:  “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”

3.  Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently.  From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official:  “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”

The American Thinker article written by Joe the Farmer is well written and researched with all the links embedded so you can go check them out for yourself and it covers much more than I have written here. Go check it out.
Then if you still need more convincing read this piece at ireport wich effectively de-bunks the de-bunkers. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

And finally if you have any doubts that O and his cronies have been working to get around this requirement for quite some timecheck out this 26 page pdf file written by a Chicago lawyer with ties to Obama that outlines why they feel this constitutional requirement is “outdated” and should be abolished. 

Is the requirement outdated? I’m not qualified to answer that. Maybe it is maybe not. Maybe it should be axed or maybe not. Regardless it IS the law as it stands now and therfore it MUST be followed and respected as such.

Why has The One spent over $800,000 on lawyers fighting this. Why won’t he simply show the proof instead of hiding behind technicalities like lack of standing and lack of an established proceedure requiring verification?

That’s right he’s NOT arguing that he is in fact “natural born” but rather his lawyers are arguing that the voters do not have standing or an established method requiring him to show verification and that the voters can’t show injury that would result byhis taking office if in fact he is ineligible.

I’d say that the voters ultimitely have standing and the injury would be the fact that anything he does, any international treaties or agreements he might sign or any person he appoints would be illigitimate if he were in fact proven ineligible.

Not to mention all those voters who sent him $600+ million dollars for his campaign who, were he proved to be ineligible, would have been frauded by a candidate who had no business soliciting funds for a campaign for an office he could not legally hold. I’d say that would qualify as standing and proof of injury in my book but we’ll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

Let’s just pray, send positive thoughts and vibes or whatever your personal preference might be that the Courtin it’s wisdom will decide to hear the case and judge it on it’s merits rather than do the easy thing and not “rock the boat” out of fear and tredipation.

Our country, it’s citizens and our Laws deserve better than that. at the very least they deserve respect from the man who might be sworn in to the highest office in the land and would be sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as all of our laws.

Seriously, the Court needs to hear this case if only to set the minds of voters atease and to establish asystem for verification or vetting of all future candidates once and for all.

There was a candidate on the ballot in 5 states, Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua, who was a candidate for president of the United States for the Socialist Workers Partythat no one bothered to vett properly either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Apparently he was on the ballot in 5 states in the 2008 election and in 9 states in 2004 in spite of the fact he was born in Nicaragua and therefore is not eligible for the office. How can this happen? The Supreme Court must hear this case and provide some insight or solution to prevent this in the future or abolish the requirement altogether.

Finally Mr. Obama must show the American voters he respects them, their country, it’s laws, it’s courts and it’s Constitution and he must step up to the plate and prove his eligibility if he can do so. He should do so out of respect but also because it is not fair to leave the voters with these doubts. It will not just go away and his presidency will never be considered legitimate unless he does this.

What do you say Mr. Obama? Please be a man and show the integrity required by the office you seek. If indeed you are “natural born” and eligible then what do you have to lose?

CQ

Read Full Post »

I cannot believe that I am actually quoting and linking to an article from Karl Rove! (Watch for flying monkeys!!) Much as I detest the man he is not an idiot and occasionally he actually tells it like it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

McCain Couldn’t Compete With Obama’s Money

America affirms Chicago’s Golden Rule.

If money talks, we’ll likely soon hear the real reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain. Both men and the national parties will report to the Federal Election Commission today how much money they raised in October and November. And what the numbers will probably show is that Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain by the biggest margin in history, perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars.

On May 31, as the general election began in earnest, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee had a combined $47 million in cash, while the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee had a combined $85 million.

Between then and Oct. 15, the Obama/DNC juggernaut raised $658.7 million. I estimate today’s reports will show Mr. Obama, the DNC and two other Obama fund-raising vehicles raised an additional $120 million to $140 million in October and November, giving them a total of between $827 million and $847 million in funds for the general election.

Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election, including the $84 million in public financing Mr. McCain accepted in exchange for his campaign not raising money after the GOP convention.

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.

 

Snip     (Wait theres more)

To diminish criticism, Mr. Obama’s campaign spun the storyline that he was being bankrolled by small donors. Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, calls that a “myth.” CFI found that Mr. Obama raised money the old fashioned way — 74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200) and nearly half from people who gave $1,000 or more.

But that’s not the entire story. It’s been reported that the Obama campaign accepted donations from untraceable, pre-paid debit cards used by Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong and other questionable characters. If the FEC follows up with a report on this, it should make for interesting reading.  (Emphasis added)

The really sad and scary part of this is the FEC will most likely NOT look into this or audit Obama’s campaign contributions. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15497.html

Obama likely to escape campaign audit 

 

 
 
The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.

McCain, on the other hand, accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from raising or spending more – allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground operations – but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining how every penny was spent.

Through the end of September, McCain had socked away $9.4 million in a special fund to pay for the audit.

 The Obama campaign does not expect to be audited, but spokesman Ben LaBolt said it would be ready in the event it is.

“We have had a first rate compliance operation for an unprecedented national grassroots fundraising effort,” LaBolt said.

“Nobody wants to go through an audit,” said former FEC chairman Michael Toner. As the top lawyer for George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, which accepted public financing, Toner prepared for that campaign’s mandatory audit, before he was appointed by Bush to a seat on the FEC.

Agency investigators fan out across the nation interviewing campaign staffers and vendors to account for even the most seemingly trivial expenses.

The resulting audits have dinged publicly financed presidential campaigns for billing the press for port-a-potties accessible to supporters at events (Bob Dole in 1996) and using the wrong formula to divide the cost of outfitting campaign planes between primary and general accounts (John Kerry in 2004).

Obama – the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general election – certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FEC’s E Street offices.

Obama’s campaign admitted it initially mis-categorized the purpose of an $832,598 payment for get-out-the-vote efforts to a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN, the community organizing group that became a top target for Republicans alleging voter fraud.

And FEC analysts over the course of the campaign have written more than a dozen letters to Obama singling out hundreds of contributors for whom the campaign either didn’t supply adequate information or from whom he accepted donations exceeding the $4,600 limit.

 
 

Spokesman LaBolt said the campaign has corrected errors as it was made aware of them. It’s  not at all unusual for the FEC to send many such letters – “requests for additional information” in agency parlance – to big-money campaigns. McCain’s campaign received at least a dozen, for instance.

But the media – first conservative outlets then mainstream publications – seized on the FEC letters to Obama, singling out donations from apparently fictitious donors as well as from foreign addresses – which are permitted as long as the donors are U.S. citizens. Allegations that the Obama campaign was willfully allowing foreign donations and excessive donations blossomed in the conservative blogosphere and prompted the Republican National Committee to file an FEC complaint.

Seizing on Obama’s reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same, as well as his campaign’s refusal to voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than $200 each – a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million that the campaign had raised through the end of September – the RNC asked the FEC “to immediately conduct a full audit” of all of Obama’s contributions.

It’s very rare for a complaint to trigger an audit, campaign finance insiders say. And ironically, the historic volume of Obama’s small contributions, which may have made it tough for the campaign to weed out problem donations, may also help spare Obama an audit.

That’s because the byzantine formula the FEC staff uses to determine whether a campaign has engaged in “substantial” violations of federal election rules – the trigger to recommend an audit to commissioners – takes into account the size of the campaign’s coffers, according to David Mason, who served as a Republican appointee to the FEC until this year.

“So if a House campaign makes a $100,000 error, that’s huge and they’re likely to get audited,” he said. “If a campaign the size of the Obama campaign has a $100,000 error, then maybe not. It would depend on what the error is, obviously,” he said, explaining that mere accounting snafus are unlikely to prompt an audit. More serious and systemic problems, such as illegal contributions, result in campaigns getting tagged with more “audit points,” Mason explained. “If you get enough audit points, you get audited,” he said, adding “nobody outside the commission would know how many audit points the Obama campaign has.”

Mary Brandenberger, an FEC spokeswoman, declined to comment on the likelihood of an Obama audit. But she explained that if campaigns adequately answer the agency’s requests for information, it’s less likely they’ll be recommended for an audit.

Even if Obama’s campaign reached the audit recommendation trigger point, it’d be tough to muster the majority commission vote necessary to initiate the audit. That’s because the FEC is comprised of three Democratic commissioners and three Republicans and, as such, is prone to deadlock on partisan issues.

Well now! Isn’t that comforting? NOT!

So McCain, who made available information on every single donation, will be audited and charged a small fortune for it, while The  One, who has been far from transparent, will likely not.

Nope. He won’t be asked any embarassing questions about all those cartoon characters and people such as Doo Dad, employed by Loving and who’s supervisor is listed as You. Not to mention all those who donated purposely under false names to see if the fact that the name on the credit card was different than that of the donor would trigger any vetting process to make certain the donations were legal, legitimate and allowable. NOT!

What a crock! The One proves the saying  “Crime doesn’t pay.” is not true. At least not in American politics!

 

CQ 

 

Read Full Post »

After spending the better part of the last two years being totally and completely obsessed with the election it’s over. The outcome was not even close to what I had hoped for. Not by any means. I’m not even sure that the outcome was in any way acceptable but accept it I must.

It’s not a ringing endorsement for the intellect in this country as once again Americans proved that more than half of us are stupid. I would have thought we would have learned our lesson after not one but two terms of GW Bush but I digress.

The really hard part is not so much that my candidate lost, or even that my second choice candidate lost but who “won”. Sure Obama won and it’s historical and all that. It’s not that I didn’t want to see a black man elected. It’s that I would have liked for that man to have been elected fairly, with honor and for him not to be a socialist/marxist/communist with a penchant for sexism and misogyny.

Truth of the matter is Obama won but America lost BIG. We will feel the consequences of our actions for a long time to come as we discover that sadly, race relations and womens’ rights have been set back decades by this election cycle and all the rotting, stinking, festering wounds that come with it.

It’s been a real wake up call for sure. Not only has it made me realize how many people were completely duped by this fraud I have also opened my eyes to things I would never have seen before. I’ve come to realize that, as much as it pains me, my party is just as complicit in “dirty fighting” as the GOP and maybe even more so this time around. I see now that it has been this way for far longer than I care to admit.

Democrats who I believed were the “good guys” the ones who stood up for the little guys and women and minorities, the ones who I though were all about principals and were above all that stuff were in fact the purveyors of some of the worst and most un-democratic behaviour I have ever witnessed.

Suddenly the party that has never missed an opportunity to remind me they are the party I can trust to stand up for women has become the party of trendy, young women wearing T-Shirts that degrade and denigrate women as a fashion statement. Who would ever have thought that it would be trendy for one woman to call another woman a derogatory term for her reproductive parts?

It has also become trendy to shove more qualified, experienced candidates aside as if they were garbage in order to insure a less qualified, inexperienced, arrogant and manipulative man gets elected at any cost because apparently all that fighting to be “equal” was just noise they made to attract the boys. Gotta find a husband somehow huh?

Yes it’s the latest fashion to be seen trashing women and treating them as second class citizens even if you are one! It’s a sick world we live in when things like this become the “norm”.

It’s also the latest and greatest to make sure anyone who disagrees with you or asks an answer and actually expects an answer is humiliated, smeared, outed, threatened, harassed and “taught” that they dare not try that again!

The way forward? I’m torn about that. Part of me wants to stay a democrat and fight to oust those who are false Dems. To take the party back and return to the principals that are so neatly laid out in the charter. You know pesky things like One Voice, One Vote and Free Speech. Stuff like that. A long road that frankly, I’m not sure is even possible any more. So infested with rot and corruption and people who have no morals or principals it may not be salvageable at this point. I’ve lost a lot of faith this cycle and I’m quite sure that I’m not alone. I’d like to see the party back to what it should be but I’m not sure it can happen.

Another part of me wants to run not walk to the nearest registration site and register as an Independant, beholden to no one and not associated with the sub-human element that is in control of the party now.

Even yet another part says “Hey if enough of us joined the republicans they would become more moderate simply as a matter of the numbers and we might actually get something done!” (I’m quite sure conservative republicans would dread this and I’m not sure I could go through with such a rash action but there it is.)

It’s taken me almost two weeks to be able to even write this post so I imagine it will take a bit more than that to decide what’s next but you can be sure that no matter what I decide with regard to party affiliation I will continue to watch Obama like a hawk and prepare to defend democracy and the American way of life should my worst fears about him prove to be true.

That’s about as far as I can go for now.

CQ

Read Full Post »

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.

 

Read Full Post »

Seems to me she gets it just fine! I think she interpeted Joe Biden’s remarks the other day quite well!

Hat tip to Texas Darlin’ for the video. And Deadender’s blog who posted the vide on youtube.

And here’s something else to ponder. I only wish the major news outlets would report on this stuff.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html?s=al&promo_code=6DC0-1

‘Smears’ About Obama Largely True

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

 

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

 

Obama’s http://www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama’s ideological allies are not dominant.

 

These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

 

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

 

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

 

 

 

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

 

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

 

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama’s campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

 

“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

 

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama’s allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

 

“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

 

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

 

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

 

Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

 

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

 

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

 

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)

 

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

 

“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.

 

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

 

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

 

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

 

“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

 

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

 

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

 

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

 

And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

 

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

 

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

 

As Newsmax has documented in [“Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,”] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

 

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

 

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, “[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

 

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

 

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

 

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

 

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”

 

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

 

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September [“NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,”] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

 

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

 

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

 

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

 

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

 

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

 

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

 

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

 

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

 

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

 

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

 

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama’s visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

 

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

 

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

 

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

 

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

 

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

 

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

 

Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined “Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid.” Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.

 

It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

 

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

 

 

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

 

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

 

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

 

“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

 

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

 

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

 

 

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”

 

As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

 

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

 

Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

 

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

 

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Read Full Post »

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/obama-and-dnc-motion-for-protective-order-staying-discovery-pending-decision-obama-is-indonesian-obama-is-an-illegal-alien/

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, THIS ___ DAY OF ___________, 2008, upon consideration of the
Motion of Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama for
Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision On Dispositive Motion, and of the
submissions of the parties relating thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is
GRANTED.

Surrick. J.

DMEAST #10127194 v1
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 2 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), defendants Democratic National Committee
and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for a protective order staying all
discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), on October 6, 2008, counsel for defendants
conferred with plaintiff about agreeing to stay or defer discovery, including deferring
responses to the discovery requests already served by plaintiff (attached as Exhibit A
hereto). Plaintiff refused to consent to any such stay or deferral.

DMEAST #10127157 v1
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 3 of 10

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying this Motion is a Brief in Support of

Motion for Protective Order and a proposed Protective Order.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.

Dated: October 6, 2008
John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,
LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)
lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Of counsel:

Joseph E. Sandler
General Counsel, Democratic National Committee
SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C.
300 M Street, S.E. #1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115

Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants
Senator Barack Obama and
Democratic National Committee

DMEAST #10127157 v1

2
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 4 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON
DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama submit
this Brief in support of their Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending
Decision on Dispositive Motion. Plaintiff has served extensive discovery requests on
defendants. As noted in Defendants’ Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, this
lawsuit is entirely without merit and plaintiffs’ allegations are patently false. Defendants
have moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. That motion presents solely issues of law; no discovery is needed in order
to resolve the motion. If the motion is granted, it will dispose of the entire action,
obviating the need for the burdensome discovery sought by plaintiff. A protective order
staying discovery is therefore warranted.

DMEAST #10127159 v1
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 5 of 10

I. Procedural Background
In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as
President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(falsely), Senator Obamais purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr.
Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President;
an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction
barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of
all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests for financial aid, college
and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being
vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests for admission on Senator Obama. On that same
date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production
of five categories of documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a
matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for
President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.

True and correct copies of these discovery requests are attached as Exhibit A hereto.

DMEAST #10127159 v1

2
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 6 of 10

II. Discussion
Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party
“from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an
order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery. “While the court should
not automatically stay discovery because a motion to dismiss has been filed, ‘a stay is
proper where the likelihood that such motion may result in a narrowing or an outright
elimination of discovery outweighs the likely harm to be produced by the delay.’” 19th
St. Baptist Church v. St. Peters Episcopal Church, 190 F.R.D. 345, 349 (E.D. Pa. 2000),
quoting Weisman v. Mediq, Inc., 1955 WL 273678, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5900 *2 (E.D.
Pa. 1995). “Where a pending motion to dismiss may dispose of the entire action and
where discovery is not needed to rule on such motion, the balance generally favors
granting a motion to stay.” Weisman, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5.

In Weisman, in which this Court found that a motion to dismiss could be decided
on the pleadings, and could be decided in a relatively short time period, the Court granted
a stay of discovery. Similarly, in Norfolk Southern Rwy Co. v. Power Source Supply,
Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15306 (W.D. Pa. 2007), defendant filed a motion to dismiss
based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction; plaintiff served interrogatories and document
requests while that motion was pending. The court granted defendant’s motion for a
protective order staying discovery, ruling that, “where, as here, an objection to the
Court’s jurisdiction made under Rule 12 might compel the dismissal of an entire action,
the Court finds that considerations of fairness and efficiency suggest the prudence of
limiting discovery to those facts necessary to resolve the motion. Because the Parties in
this matter have fully briefed the jurisdiction issue and await only the Court’s ruling,

DMEAST #10127159 v1

3
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 7 of 10

discovery in this case shall be stayed and Defendant protected from the requests that
Plaintiff has already propounded.” Id. at *4.

In this case, as in Weisman and Norfolk Southern Rwy., defendants’ pending
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would dispose of the entire
action. The motion does not involve any disputed issues of fact: defendants contend that,
as a matter of law, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate
for President and that there is no federal cause of action that could serve as a means for
such a challenge. Thus, discovery is not needed in order to rule on the motion. In these
circumstances, a stay of discovery is warranted and appropriate.

DMEAST #10127159 v1

4
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 8 of 10

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the motion of defendants
DNC and Senator Barack Obama for a protective order staying discovery pending a

decision on their motion to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Dated: October 6, 2008 John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,
LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)
lavellej@ballardspahr.com
Of counsel:
Joseph E. Sandler

PLEASE TAKE NOTE: EMPHASIS ADDED TO POINT OUT THE ATTY FOR THE DNC AND OBAMA IS ALSO THE SAME ATTY WHO REPRESENTS LOUIS FARRAKKAN AND THE NATION OF ISLAM AMONG OTHER QUESTIONABLE CLIENTS! COINCIDENCE?? DOUBTFULL!

General Counsel, Democratic National Committee
SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C.
300 M Street, S.E. #1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115  (Emphasis added)

Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants
Senator Barack Obama and
Democratic National Committee

DMEAST #10127159 v1

5
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 9 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 26.1(F)

Undersigned counsel for Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator

Barack Obamahereby certifies pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(f) that the parties, after reasonable

effort, are unable to resolve the dispute that is the subject matter of Defendants’ Motion for

Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision On Dispositive Motion.

/s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.

Dated: October 6, 2008
John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)
lavellej@ballardspahr.com

DMEAST #10127199 v1
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Defendant Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s
Motion for a Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive Motion
and Brief in Support thereof was served by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the
following:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867

Plaintiff

Dated: October 6, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.
John P. Lavelle, Jr.

DMEAST #10127407 v1

Jeez! Am I the only one who thinks it’s getting too deep here? I mean instead of just showing the proof Obama and the DNC filed a motion to dismiss and then when Berg filed for discoverey ect. they request an order to delay any and all discovery until after the motion to dismiss has been ruled on. In other words ( I’m no lawyer) they don’t want to respond or show proof. They filed to dismiss on grounds they don’t think Berg has a case (yeah right) and when berg filed to force discovery (in other words show the documents) they ask the court to protect them from having to show proof until they get the judge to dismiss the case so they won’t have to.

BULLSHIT! Show us the proof you fucking cowards! All this posturing and begging the court to do his bidding is just too much! They are wasting time and resources instead of simply digging out the documents requested and putting his money where his mouth is so to speak! For crying out loud! He wants the top job in the country and he gets insulted and asks for special treatment, special protection from the rules and laws the rest of us have to live by every time anyone questions him on qualifications, experience, eligibility, specific definitions of his “Hope” and “Change” you know little things like that.

I recently read a comment about how we should all just fall on our knees and worship the “great leader” instead of wasting time on such tiny, little technicalities. I suppose the Constitution is just a technicality then?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »