Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

BetsyRoss · ALIPAC Super Hero Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 3542

Back then, public and secular schools were much more tolerant of religious art and party themes in the schools than they have been recently. All that artwork suggests to me is that the school was not Muslim. And, there are MANY orientals in Hawaii, some of whom are quite tiny. I worked with a gal named Kanoi who was more the size and build of a girl than us Europeans at her age. I have known other Hawaiians, and most are of mixed blood. Samoans have a reputation for being huge, too, but there are exceptions.

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:34 am Post subject:

The question of usurping the Constitution in favor of allowing anyone to become POTUS has been with us for a while, as the following Senate hearing excerpt from Barney Frank shows us. I think the progressives and members of the shadow government figured in 2004-2008 'screw it - let's just do it and see what happens.'

Barney Frank mentions 'discrimination' as though it was a bad thing. Sorry, Barney, the requirements to be POTUS ARE discriminatory, and for GOOD reasons.

He also says people accuse him of 'amending the Constitution.' Not so. We're accusing him and the rest of the Democratic controlled Congress of ignoring and violating the Constitution. Big difference - amending is lawful; usurping is unlawful.

Stupid, malicious, power hungry socialists... grumble... grumble...

I'll wager there is a long trail of public speeches, private conversations, and meeting notes that would provide an extensive conspiracy trail to overthrow our Constitution. Good fodder for another historical book on the shadow government's efforts to ruin our national sovereignty.

If you haven't read Prof. Steven Yates 25-page article yet, this might be a good time to do so.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21992009/Steven-Yates-The-Four-Cardinal-Errors

Books like 'Who will tell the People' by William Greider, 'The Late Great USA' by Jerome Corsi, and 'Rule by Secrecy' by Jim Marrs will add to your depth of knowledge on the attacks against our sovereignty.

=================

MAXIMIZING VOTER CHOICE: OPENING THE PRESIDENCY TO NATURALIZED AMERICANS HEARING

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
OCTOBER 5, 2004

Serial No. J–108–98

(…)
Chairman HATCH. Thank you. I sure appreciate having you here. Representative Frank, we are honored to have you here, and we look forward to hearing your always lucid comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Representative FRANK. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the way you framed this as increasing the choice for voters. Obviously, there is an element here of fairness to individuals. My colleague from Arkansas has pointed that out. And I was first asked to do this — I did this a few years ago. I filed one version. I actually had a hearing when Representative Kennedy from Florida was the Chair of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. Four or five years ago we had a hearing. And it was brought to my attention by an immigrant, who is an American citizen, who has been active in politics in the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and he was troubled, as I was, by the invidious discrimination of it. It basically says to people who have chosen to come to America in many cases, or who have been brought here, who have gone through the process of citizenship, have been very loyal, very law-abiding citizens, that they are somehow flawed.

The notion that people who come here and become naturalized are any less entitled to be here and to exercise privileges and rights and responsibilities than anybody else is offensive. And for that reason alone, we ought to get rid of it. Beyond that, though, there is a fundamental principle here, and it is the one you touch on with your phrasing of this. I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish.

Now, people say, well, you are amending the Constitution. The fact is that in 1789, the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed. Clearly, in terms of world history, the people who came to the American Constitutional Convention, they went for the first time to self-governance, but they did not go all the way. They had a Senate which was indirectly elected, a House directly elected, a President that was not supposed to be even indirectly elected. Remember, the original notion of the Electoral College was they would vote for a lot of smart guys, and the smart guys would sit around and decide who should be President. Remember, in the Electoral College, you did not pick President or Vice President. You just voted for President, and whoever got the most votes was the President, and whoever got the second most votes was the Vice President.

We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction. Unfortunately, the evolution has not yet reached a point where we got rid of that foolish Electoral College, but that is something for a later day. But we do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them: We don’t trust you. You could get fooled. I mean, they might — some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person mole him into the United States, or her, and get that person citizenship, and then years later have that person get elected President, and you will be too dumb to notice. I don’t think that is accurate, and I don’t think that ought to be the governing principle. I really believe that the people of the United States ought to have the right to elect as President of the United States someone they wish.

I understand the prudential argument about some time limitation. I originally said 20 years. Mr. Snyder said 35. The fewer the better, as far as I am concerned. I will be honest with you. If you look at the principle of it, in my view an hour and a half is probably about enough time, because I trust the voters. This is up to them. Obviously, for practical reasons it will have to be a little bit longer.

But that is the issue. Should we tell the American people that we do not trust them to decide that someone — and, remember, nobody parachutes into the Presidency.

Chairman HATCH. That is a tough process.

Representative FRANK. Yes, it is hard work, as we have learned. I understand that. I heard that last week, that it is very hard work to be President.
[Laughter]

Representative FRANK. In fact, I understand they do not play ‘‘Hail to the Chief’’ anymore at the White House. They play ‘‘A Hard Day’s Night.’’ But nobody comes in without being subject to a lot of scrutiny. Presidential candidates are people who the public has a chance to see. They have been in lower offices. They have been in the private sector. They have been prominent. And I don’t think we should say that the American people don’t have the mental acuity and political judgment to look at someone who has been around for a while and who has achieved the kind of prominence that you have to achieve to be a Presidential candidate, but we cannot trust them to pick someone who happened to have been born in another country because of some flaw on their part. So I think this is really a further step in bringing democracy as it should truly be understood to the electoral process, and I am for it, and it would also have, I think, a very useful time. You know, this is a world in which our country has been, I think, unfairly accused of a lot of things; misinterpreted. I think for this country at this point to take a step towards enhancing the rights of immigrants, even in this particular way would be — this is a good time to do it.

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. There is no question that you have made a lot of good points there, some of which have been too humorous, I think.
[Laughter]

Yeah, real funny...
_________________
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

TexasBorn · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:46 am Post subject:

FreedomFirst · ALIPAC Master Joined: Nov 18, 2008 Posts: 424

Miss Tickly has suspended her blog (??) and Donofrio is now possessed of enough "denial of access" paperwork to file a lawsuit in Hawaii.

TerriK / Tickly seemed to be going off some kind of deep end, claiming Obama's real father might link him up to some native Hawaiian roots?

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject:

Mario has filed an appeal in Kerchner:

KERCHNER, et al. v OBAMA, et al. - APPEAL - 11/09/2009 - OPEN DOCUMENT - CIVIL CASE DOCKETED

http://tinyurl.com/yz59mvu
_________________
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

cayla99 · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:41 pm Post subject:

TexasBorn · Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:19 pm Post subject:

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject:

AirborneSapper7 · Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject:

Witnesses: Obama birth lawyer told us to lie

November 11th, 2009, 5:00 am
· 134 Comments
· posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

A man claiming to have been Barack Obama’s homosexual lover and another claiming to have Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate say Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz asked them to lie in federal court. I’ll get to the details of their affidavits with the allegations momentarily.

Taitz planned to use the two as witnesses in her effort to prove Obama was born in Kenya and is not a legitimate president. However, the case was dismissed on Oct. 29 by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter without going to trial.

In his dismissal, Carter wrote, “the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”

The affidavits have not been been made public by Carter. However, in a Nov. 9 motion that criticized Carter’s dismissal of the case, Taitz identifies Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith as the witnesses she believes filed affidavits saying that she asked them to lie. She denies the accusations and told me she thinks Sinclair and Smith filed the affidavits in response to pressure put on them.

Sinclair provided me a copy of the affidavit he said he provided to the court, and said that he mailed a copy to Taitz as well. Sinclair posted his affidavit online, and he told me that he sent Taitz a copy by e-mail.

It’s unclear if the California Bar Association will review those affidavits. It will, however, be reviewing a $20,000 sanction against Taitz by a federal judge in Georgia, and will determine whether it merits an investigation and possible punishment. Click here for the story on that sanction.

Smith claims to have bribed a Kenyan official in February and obtained this document, which he says is Obama’s 1961 Kenyan birth certificate. Click here to read more about the document and how Smith came into possession of it. Among those calling the document a fake is World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi, in this analysis and this story. WND has typically supported various allegations that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate, and has reported sympathetically on Taitz’s legal efforts.

Among allegations made in the affidavit from Smith is that Taitz asked him to say that he was the one who obtained a document that was alleged to be a 1964 Republic of Kenya Certified Copy of
Registration of Birth of Barack Hussein Obama II. That document had been called a forgery by experts and in his affidavit, Smith said his research also concluded that the document was fake.

(It bears noting that Smith attempted to sell the 1961 birth certificate on eBay, but his auction was taken down by eBay administrators.)

Smith also said that after he nearly stepped in front of a car driving down the street, Taitz “wanted me to give testimony in the Honorable Judge David O. Carter’s courtroom that there had been an ‘attempt on my life’…”

Taitz was hoping to have Smith testify at a Sept. 8 administrative hearing, and was pleading with Carter to hear Smith’s story before any trial. Taitz told the court that Smith’s life was in danger because the Obama administration did not want the information to get out.

This is where Larry Sinclair, Obama’s alleged gay lover, enters the picture. In his book, “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?,” Sinclair writes that he twice performed oral sex on Obama in November 1999 and that the two got high on coke together. Sinclair also alleges that Donald Young, choir director at Obama’s Chicago church, had homosexual relations with Obama. Young was shot to death shortly before the 2008 Iowa caucus, a killing Sinclair says Obama may have had a hand in.

According to Sinclair’s affidavit, Taitz wanted Sinclair to testify in order to bolster the case that lives were in danger and the case should be expedited.

But, Sinclair says in his affidavit, one murder apparently wasn’t enough for Taitz.

“Orly Taitz stated, ‘Larry, I want you to testify that three members of Obama’s church were murdered.’ I interrupted Orly Taitz at this time and informed her, ‘Dr. Taitz, I told you when you contacted me in December 2008 you were spreading false claims, there was not three members of Obama’s church murdered.’” Sinclair says in the affidavit.

Sinclair also says that Taitz asked him to identify for the court a birthmark on Obama, which Sinclair said he had not in fact seen.

Taitz said she “absolutely did not” ask Smith to say the 1964 certificate came from him, and “absolutely did not” ask him to say there had been an attempt on his life. She said she talked to Sinclair about other deaths in the church but did not ask him to lie, and denied his other allegations as well.

“There was some kind of pressure on Lawrence Sinclair and Lucas Daniel Smith to stop working with me,” Taitz said.

Pressure from whom?

“I don’t know who,” she said.

Sinclair says the only pressure he felt was from Taitz and her backers.

“I had gone out of my way to not be associated with her in any way, but she continued to try and pull me and my story into her cases,” Sinclair wrote me in an email. “I have not been pressured except by the constant attacks from her and her supporters because I would not make statements that I knew to be false.”

In his affidavit, Smith repeatedly expresses frustration with Taitz’ inability to address the lawsuit effectively.

“… it began to become clearer and clearer to me that Orly Taitz had no understanding of the law,” he said. “I came to an exhaustive conclusion that Orly Taitz may be the ‘Birthers’ worst nightmare. Outside of paying attention to her own voice at length, Orly Taitz has the attention span of a small child….”

“I knew that there was nothing further that I could do to convince Orly Taitz that we should fight this case with truths and documentation rather than her campaign of fighting Obama lies with Orly lies.”

Click here to read Smith’s affidavit. Beware that there is explicit discussion of Taitz alleged sexual behavior.

Related stories:
Obama birthplace lawyer lashes out at court
Santa Ana lawsuit challenging Obama’s birthplace dismissed
My profile of Orly Taitz
Obama birthplace lawyer submits suspect document
Suit dismissed, similar to O.C. Obama birthplace challenge
Lawyer Orly Taitz tries patience of federal court
Obama birthplace lawyer fined for legal misconduct
Legal expert expects Taitz O.C. lawsuit to be dismissed
Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate alleged in O.C. lawsuit
Obama-birthplace lawsuit in O.C. plagued by infighting
One of O.C. attorney’s suits tossed in Obama birth debate

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/11/witnesses-obama-birth-lawyer-told-us-to-lie/25035/

many links on this post; please go to the link above to view them
_________________
I'm a Conservative ~ "BOO" and According to Obama and Napolitano I am (AKA) the "Boogieman"

MinutemanCDC_SC · ALIPAC Hero Elite Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 1505

From Dr. Taitz's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed with Judge David Carter on Nov. 9:
__________________________________________________

Orly Taitz, Esq., wrote:

ex-parte

__________________________________________________

If you don't object to my using so many electrons (no carbon oxidized in the process),
I'll reprint Dr. Taitz's entire motion here. She was lengthy, but passionate in her pursuit of justice.
_________________
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.

The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

MinutemanCDC_SC · ALIPAC Hero Elite Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 1505

Important! Motion for reconsideration in Barnett v Obama filed.
Hearing on Motion for reconsideration has been requested for November 20th.

Motions 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Captain Pamela Barnett, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al
CASE CLOSED on 10/29/2009
(ANx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY, MANADR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 11/9/2009 at 4:29 PM PST and filed on 11/9/2009
. . .

Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and motion for reconsideration of October 29th order under Rule 59E and Rule 60.

1. A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason for most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your Honor hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who previously worked for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the defendant in the above case, Mr. Obama. As a matter of fact Perkins Coie was one of the firms representing the defendants in a prior legal action filed by the plaintiffs in this very case, Ambassador Alan Keyes et al against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and Democratic party electors specifically for not vetting Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate, as Ms. Bowen didn’t request any vital records and never checked any vital records of Mr. Obama, as she and all the other secretaries of states took his Declaration of a Candidate on its face value. As it is a common knowledge that law clerks do most of the research and write most of the opinions for the judges, the order to dismiss this case was de facto written or largely influenced by an attorney who until recently worked for a firm representing the defendant in this case, and who currently is working as a clerk for the presiding judge, as such most of the order is tainted by bias. This is a clear prejudice against the plaintiffs. While Mr. Velamoor will surely claim that he didn’t work on Obama case before, his employment with Perkins Coie should’ve disqualified him, and indeed the order reads as if it is written by the defense counsel, highly biased against the plaintiffs, 99 percent of the order either misstates the facts or the pleadings or oral argument, it misstates the law and is full of personal attacks, de facto accusing decorated members of the military of being cowards; and this order is particularly used as a tool in what seems to be a concerted effort by this Court and judge Clay D Land in GA to use the power of federal judiciary to publicly lynch the undersigned counsel, to use innuendo, ex parte defamatory and slanderous statements to assassinate her character, to destroy her as a human being and endanger her law license, only because she is not only the only attorney brave enough to bring most of eligibility legal actions, to bring actions from plaintiffs with real standing, the only one to get any hearings, but she is also the only one to bring forward evidence from licensed investigators showing Mr. Obama committing multiple felonies, for which he should be serving lengthy prison term. The court erred in hiring Mr. Velamoor or in the alternative not recusing himself from hearing this case.

2. The plaintiffs request the court to strike from the order unsupported and prejudicial verbiage. Please see in the attachment Declaration of the undersigned attorney.

3. The court has stated in the pleadings that the undersigned attorney has encouraged her supporters to contact the court in an attempt to influence his decision in the October 5 hearing. This is not true. The plaintiffs request this stricken from the final order.

4. During October 5 hearing your honor has stated that the undersigned attorney encouraged the supporters to attempt to influence the court’s decision. This never happened. When the undersigned attorney requested to respond, the court stated: “[N]o, no, it’s done. You’ve put it out there. Now it’s your responsibility”. The undersigned attorney has done nothing of a kind and believes that this information might’ve come from some ex parte communications with the presiding judge coming from parties connected to the defense, which is prejudicial, inflammatory and defamatory. The undersigned requests it stricken from the order.

5. The court has included in the order mention of yet another ex-parte communication with the judge, where two parties claimed that the undersigned counsel has asked them to perjure themselves. Please see the declaration, this was a slanderous, defamatory, prejudicial allegation, and the undersigned had no opportunity to respond.

6. The undersigned believes that the letters came from Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith.

7. Larry Sinclair was asked to authenticate an affidavit he submitted to the Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In the affidavit submitted to the Chicago police and in his book recently published, Mr. Sinclair has stated that Mr. Donald Young has contacted him repeatedly and stated that he had a homosexual relationship with Mr. Barack Obama and that Mr. Young was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds December 23, 2007 at the onset of 2008 Democratic primary elections. Any allegations of the undersigned attorney asking the witness to perjure himself are not only completely defamatory and prejudicial, but are void of any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair’s affidavit regarding Mr. Young’s homicide can be found filed with the Chicago PD and in his book. A copy of the Affidavit of Larry Sinclair and Coroners Certificate of Death of Donald Young is attached as an Exhibit.

8. Lucas Smith was asked to authenticate Mr. Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Kenya, which he previously tried to sell on e-bay and which he authenticated under penalty of perjury both on video camera and in writing. As such any allegations of suborning perjury are totally defamatory and void of any sense or reason, since Mr. Smith made this information public long before ever meeting the undersigned counsel. Therefore any and all allegations of misconduct by the undersigned are totally without merit, prejudicial and defamatory and need to be stricken from the order.

9. The undersigned is the only attorney, who has the bravery of character to pursue not only the issue of Mr. Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency, but also information provided by two licensed investigators, showing that according to reputable databases Mr. Obama has used 39 different social security numbers including the social security numbers of the deceased individuals. This information is an indication of multiple felonies committed by the sitting president, and the undersigned believes that she was targeted and defamatory statements were used in order to keep her silent, to endanger her license and prevent her from proceeding on the above issues. The undersigned is deeply concerned about the fact that the court chose to include in the order slanderous ex-parte communications, while completely ignoring the above evidence against the defendant, which show a tremendous likelihood of success on a RICO claim.

10. The court has commented on the plaintiffs’ inability to file a full pledged RICO complaint, calling it inexcusable. The court apparently forgot the fact that the plaintiffs have asked for discovery in order to obtain sufficient information for complete RICO complaint. The court has denied all requests for discovery, therefore making it impossible for the plaintiffs to submit fully pleaded RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs request discovery in order to submit a properly plead RICO complaint or in the alternative a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on RICO cause of action.

11. The court relies on Ashwander vs Tenn Valley, as the reason to assert that it has no jurisdiction. This is a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. As Ashwander states “If a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction of general law, the Court will decide only the latter”. The fact of the matter is that there is no law or statute,that provides definition of the Natural Born Citizen clause. The defense has argued a definition completely different from the definition submitted by the plaintiffs, therefore in the absence of any law or statute providing such definition Aswander actually dictates that the issue needs to be decided based on the Constitution. Central district court of California clearly has a right to interpret the Constitution, so based on the court's own argument the case has to be adjudicated. “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it is brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution” Supreme Court justice John Marshall in Cohen v Virginia 19 US 264 (1821).

12. The undersigned counsel requests the court to strike out of the order unsupported, prejudicial, demeaning and defamatory language p8, line 22-24 insinuating that the military plaintiffs in this action are cowards and writing: “The court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve”. The undersigned has submitted to this court a letter from Captain Crawford, Legal Counsel to Admiral Malin, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, which clearly stated that the commander in Chief is considered a civilian and there is nothing military can do regarding his eligibility. Based on this response from the military the plaintiffs have brought this matter to the Federal court to ascertain legitimacy and allegiance of the Commander in Chief, who is not a part of the military. The order completely misstated the complaint and standing justification. Recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood has given this question paramount importance. This order has advocated blind obedience by the members of the military. If someone were to have common sense, brains and strength of character to challenge allegiance of Nidal Malik Hasan in court, after he made numerous anti-American and antimilitary statements, maybe 12 [13] young boys wouldn’t be 6 feet under today, maybe 12 [13] mothers and 12 [13] fathers wouldn’t had their hearts ripped out of their chests and torn apart. Similarly, in the oral argument the undersigned counsel didn’t bring rhetoric, but rather she brought valid observations, as she pointed out to Mr. Obama’s actions from the beginning of his rein, when he almost immediately cut veteran’s health benefits by $500 million a year, while giving $900 million to Gaza, which is governed by a terrorist organization Hamas, which announced war on the United States of America. She argued that it is important to proceed with Mr. Obama’s eligibility action expeditiously and ascertain his Natural Born Status and allegiance expeditiously as tremendous harm can be done to this Nation and this military by one with questionable status and questionable allegiance. Therefore, the plaintiffs request all of the above language stricken and the standing reconsidered.

13. The court has misstated the main argument of the case. The court states that the court has no jurisdiction to remove [a] duly elected president. That is a complete misinterpretation of the plaintiffs’ argument, probably done by the biased clerk. In reality the whole argument and plea, is for the court to decide, whether the person residing in the White House is duly elected. If he got there by virtue of massive fraud, he had no right to be there and people who voted for him had no right to vote for him. The plaintiffs asked for the judicial determination, for the declaratory relief. If the court finds that fraud was committed, then not only Mr. Obama should be criminally prosecuted, but he will also be liable to about 20 percent of the population of this country who voted for him and particularly to the ones that contributed to his campaign. Just as when one forges a deed to a house, the rightful owner is justified in going to court for as long as it takes to achieve justice and remove the forger and the thief from his house. No judge will be justified in intimidating or sanctioning the owner of the house for going to court to seek resolution on the merits. Similarly, “we the people” are the rightful owners of the White House and we have the right to go to the authorities and the courts to seek the resolution on the merits for as long as it takes and to remove one who got there by virtue of fraud. It is ludicrous to believe that any judge has any justification to attack us, to sanction us for what is clearly our constitutional right. Saying that no citizen in the country has standing and no court has standing is error of law. This court has erred in not taking into account the October 5th oral argument by the undersigned attorney in that California Choice of law rules require District of Columbia Law be applied to DC defendants. [The] Constitution is a contract between “we the people” and the government. [The] Natural Born Citizen clause is an integral part of this contract. California Supreme court adopted the rule laid out in §187 of the restatement of the Conflict of Laws.. Under §188, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction at issue is applied. California has adopted the rule of §188. Edwards v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 848 F. Supp. 1460 (ND Cal. 1994); Stonewall Surplus lines Ins. Co v Johnson Controls. Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 637, 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 713(1993). This is a case with diversity of parties and the court can make a determination of a choice of law. As such Your Honor can and has to choose DC law, which includes [the] Quo Warranto provision. The interest of judicial economy and National Defense as well as the interest of National security particularly in light of latest slaughter of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan dictate for Your Honor to make a determination of election of DC law and proceeding in Quo Warranto under DC statute 16-3503.

14. The court erred in not taking Judicial notice of 18 USC §1346; Intangible Rights Fraud-as individual damages are not required in Public Sector Mail and Wire Political corruption. Mr. Obama’s use of multiple social security numbers, including the social security numbers of the deceased individuals, his obfuscation of all the vital records and use of computer images of records that cannot be considered genuine according to the experts constitute individual predicate acts under Civil R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C.§§1961,1962(a)-(d), and 1964(c)., which gives standing to every member of the public at large. Denial of standing was an error of law.

15. The court has made an erroneous and prejudicial statement regarding the service of process by the plaintiffs. It was a clear error of fact and of law. Mr. Obama has been served four times and evaded service of process. As the original action was filed by the undersigned counsel on the Inauguration Day (prior to swearing, as Mr. Obama took a proper oath only the next day, on January 21st) by the undersigned counsel against Mr. Obama as an individual for his actions as an individual prior to the election, the undersigned counsel has properly served Mr. Obama as an individual under rule 4e and properly demanded from the court a default judgment and post default discovery. As the court refused to grant the default judgment, the undersigned properly demanded certification for the interlocutory appeal. As Mr. Obama did not respond to the service of process and couldn’t send a US attorney to represent him, a game was played and US attorney has showed up at July 13 hearing de-facto representing Mr. Obama and arguing on his behalf, while claiming that Mr. Obama was not served and that the US attorney represents United States of America-party of interest. If the issue wouldn’t be so serious for the National Security of the country, the whole charade would’ve been laughable. After all US attorneys were supposed to represent “we the people" and were supposed to join the plaintiffs, protecting them from massive fraud, not cover up for the defendant. Assistant US attorney, Mr. DeJute demanded that the undersigned counsel serve Mr. Obama through the US attorney’s office, thereby giving Mr. Obama an opportunity to get legal defense at the taxpayers’ expense. The undersigned attorney properly protested, stating that Mr. Obama was properly served as an individual in regards to fraud that he committed as an individual prior to the election and therefore he is not entitled to be represented by the US attorneys at taxpayers' expense. Your honor did not state that the undersigned was wrong in her assessment, but rather stated in presence of 50 observers, that if the undersigned does not serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, the US attorney will appeal and the case will be sitting in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, that if the undersigned counsel agrees to serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, Your Honor promises that the case will be heard on the merits and will not be dismissed on technicality. The undersigned counsel has protested and raised concerns that, based on prior cases, she is afraid that the US Attorney’s office will try to dismiss on technicality such as standing or jurisdiction, and the case will not be heard on the merits. Again in front of 50 spectators Your Honor assured that this court has jurisdiction and it is important for this case to be decided not on default judgment, but on the merits, that it is important for the military to know if the Commander in Chief is legitimate, it is important for the whole country. If he is legitimate he can stay in the White House, if he is not legitimate, he needs to be removed from there. Under duress and tremendous pressure from Your Honor the undersigned counsel has agreed to serve US attorney with the complaint. Her worst fears materialized, as not only Your Honor has dismissed the case claiming lack of jurisdiction, but the whole issue was completely misrepresented and the undersigned counsel was denigrated. In the above matter the court erred both in the fact and the law. Mr. Obama should’ve lost this case on the default judgment, post judgment discovery was supposed to be ordered and all the vital records of Mr. Obama could’ve been unsealed back in July –August, and this whole nightmare for the whole Nation should’ve been over 3 months ago. As it stands now, the undersigned counsel, her clients, all of the spectators present in the courtroom and the whole Nation justifiably feel defrauded not only by Mr. Obama, but also by this court.

16. The court erred in not including in the order and not considering an affidavit of Sandra Ramsey Lines, submitted by the plaintiffs as part of the attachment in Dossier #1 and Dossier #6, as Ms Lines, one of the most renowned forensic document experts, stated in her affidavit that Mr. Obama’s short form Certification of Live Birth cannot be considered genuine without analyzing the original currently sealed in the Health Department in Hawaii. Court also erred in omitting from the final order affidavits of licensed investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels. Court erred in refusing to lift the stay of discovery and granting a motion to dismiss, whereby the court de facto aided and abetted obstruction of Justice by Mr. Obama.

17. The court has misrepresented the allegations in the pleadings. On page 2 line 10 The court states that the complaint pleadings talk about Mr. Obama’s citizenship status and his birth in Kenya. This is a misstatement of law and complete misstatement of the pleadings and Oral argument. The undersigned has submitted for Judicial notice The Law of Nations by Emer De Vattel, specifically arguing that regardless of where Mr. Obama was born, he was never qualified for presidency, and he admitted it, as he admitted that he had British Citizenship at birth based on the citizenship of his father. Later he acquired Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship, therefore he did not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, as from birth and until now he had allegiance to other Nations. [A] Natural born citizen is one born in the country to parents (both of them) who are Citizens of the country. This definition was widely used by the framers of the Constitution and was quoted by Chief Justice John Jay and the framer of the 14th amendment John A Bingham.

18. The court erred in its statement that the court “is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against president Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District court of Columbia”. This an error of law, since the DC code states that the Quo Warranto may be brought in D.C., it does not state that it is an exclusive jurisdiction, it does not state that another district court cannot try DC residents including the President under DC statutes and there is no notion in the DC court that proceeding in another court under Quo Warranto will somehow rob the D.C. court. The DC code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the district usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”. DC code §§16-3501-16-3503 (emphases added). The word may does not mean exclusive jurisdiction, and as such the undersigned counsel was absolutely correct in her assertion that this court has proper jurisdiction to proceed under quo warranto and she prays that Your Honor proceeds immediately and expeditiously with denying the defendants motion to dismiss Quo Warranto cause of action and grants the plaintiffs lift of stay of discovery so they can complete the discovery by the January 26 trial date.

19. The court has made an error of fact and completely misstated the FOIA complaint. Pp 26-27. For lack of better words it simply put the FOIA complaint on its head. The undersigned counsel did not state that the FOIA requests need to be sent to the defendants, who are individuals, but simply said that in the period of nearly a year she has sent requests for information and request to take proper action to numerous agencies around the country, requesting information about the defendants, and since Mr. Obama has sealed all of his vital records by the executive order on the first day of office, further FOIA requests would be futile. The undersigned counsel has submitted voluminous dossiers 1-6 as attachments and showed the court that she undertook a Herculean effort to obtain proper information from the Department of Justice, State department, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Social Security Administration, Selective Service to name a few. She visited governmental offices all over the country, including CA, Washington DC, KY, TN, WA, TX and others. Simply put there is a wall of silence and lack of response from all of the agencies and therefore a judicial determination and an order of discovery from the trial judge is needed. As there is an error of fact in the order, the undersigned counsel requests to deny the defendants motion to dismiss, and to lift the stay of discovery, so the plaintiffs can complete the proper discovery and proceed on FOIA cause of action at the scheduled trial date of January 26.

20. The court erred in its assertion that Mr. Obama has submitted his birth certificate. The whole point is that he submitted a photo shopped computer image of a short version Certification of Life Birth, obtained in 2007, that does not provide the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures. Mr. Obama has sealed his original birth certificate. State of Hawaii allows one to get a birth certificate based on an uncorroborated statement of one relative only, as such there is a need to unseal the original birth certificate, birthing file and other vital records in order to ascertain his Natural Born Status.

21. The court has made an error of law in regards to the declaratory relief cause of action. From p.16 to p.25 the court proceeds with a voluminous argument on jurisdiction to remove the president and at the end of the argument makes a huge leap and lumps declaratory relief together with the injunctive relief in one denial. Even if one were to assume arguendo that the court has [b]no power to remove Mr. Obama from office, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Declaratory Relief. In the declaratory relief the plaintiffs are simply looking for the judicial determination of the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen and factual determination, whether Mr. Obama possess proper vital records and citizenship status to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen. This is an issue of first impression, it is ripe and it is of the paramount importance for the country as a whole and particularly for the military that needs to take orders from Mr. Obama as the Commander in Chief. Judicial determination in the form of the declaratory relief is the exclusive domain of the judiciary, it is an Article 3 issue. The Congress has absolutely no power to issue declaratory relief, it has no power to interpret the Constitution, and regardless of the mechanism by which Mr Obama will be later removed from office: Quo Warranto or impeachment, the judicial determination, the declaratory relief has to be done now and it has to be done here. As such the undersigned counsel prays that your Honor deny the defendants motion to dismiss Declaratory Relief cause of action and grant the lift of discovery so that the undersigned counsel can complete her discovery on the Declaratory Relief cause of action by the January 26 date, set for the jury trial.

22. Lastly the court erred in fact of law and fact on the issue of the political doctrine, justiciability and separation of powers. The defense would like to turn this issue into the political doctrine, however it is not an issue of politics, it is an issue of fraud committed prior to taking office. The plaintiffs were not seeking to enjoin any particular decisions of the executive branch, but rather fraud committed by one in order to become the Chief Executive. As the undersigned read to the court a letter written by Senator Sessions of Alabama, the Congress is relying on the courts to resolve the issue of eligibility. The Congress and Senate do not have any power [?!?] to ascertain whether Mr. Obama is eligible according to the Constitution.[?!?!?!?!?] They are relying on you, Your Honor, to make a Judicial Determination, provide declaratory relief and they can take action upon your determination. In undying words of Chief Judge John Marshall, ["N]ot exercising jurisdiction, when it is available, is treason to the Constitution.["] Therefore there is not only a potential for justiciability, but obligation to take action based on justiciability. In which way can jurisdiction and justiciability be asserted? Clearly these are uncharted waters, however if this Nation would’ve been afraid to enter uncharted water, it would’ve never sent a man to the Moon. If we could send a man to the Moon, we can figure out the issues of the separation of powers, justiciability and jurisdiction. In the humble opinion of the undersigned proper cause of action provided several avenues: (a) declaratory relief on Mr. Obama’s Natural born status; (b) forwarding the findings to Congress for their decision on impeachment; (c) forwarding the finding to a special prosecutor; (d) forwarding the findings of fraud, social security fraud, identity theft-if found, to the Department of Justice and Social Security administration for further handling and ultimate enforcement (e). all of the above. After many years of test taking in medicine and law, the undersigned believes that all of the above is the most comprehensive, all encompassing answer.

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request their motion for reconsideration granted and the defendants motion to dismiss denied, or in the alternative the plaintiffs seek the leave of court to file a second amended complaint against Mr. Obama specifically on Declaratory Relief, R.I.C.O, Quo Warranto, 1983, Common Law Fraud and Breach of Contract (Constitution of the United States Of America, Article 2, Section 1 being subject matter of the material breach).

Respectfully submitted,

NOVEMBER 9, 2009

/s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ

. . .

Declaration of Orly Taitz

1. My name is Orly Taitz. I am over 18 years old, am of sound mind and free of any mental disease or psychological impairment of any kind or condition.

2. I am a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the state of California.

3. I am an attorney and an officer of the court licensed in all courts of the state of California, Supreme Court of the United States, Federal District Court in the central District of the State of California and have practiced pro hac vice in the states of Texas, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

4. This declaration is made in response to the October 29th order in above captioned case.

5. During the October 5 hearing in the above mentioned case Judge David O. Carter stated that I encouraged my supporters to call him in order to influence his decision.

6. I declare under penalty of perjury that this is not true.
During the hearing I tried to protest this defamatory allegation against me and asked to speak. However, Judge Carter refused to let me speak and respond to this allegation.

7. In the same order on page 29, Judge Carter has stated that he received letters with affidavits, claiming that I asked potential witnesses to perjure themselves.

8. I declare that this is absolutely and categorically not true, and it constitutes an outrageous defamatory and slanderous accusation.

9. Those letters were ex parte communications, highly prejudicial against me and my clients and I had no opportunity to respond and deny those accusations.

10. I believe that the court referred to the letters from Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith. Both parties were contacted and asked to be witnesses during the motion hearing on September 8, 2009.

11. I have asked Larry Sinclair to authenticate an affidavit he submitted to the Chicago police regarding the homicide of Mr. Donald Young. In fact, the statements to which Mr. Sinclair would testify are already a matter of public record.
In the affidavit submitted to the Chicago Police and in his book, recently published, Mr. Sinclair stated that Mr. Donald Young contacted him repeatedly and told Mr. Sinclair that he had a lengthy homosexual relationship with Mr. Obama.
The affidavit further said that Mr. Young was found dead, shot in the back of his head at the onset of the Democratic primaries for 2008 presidential election.
Any allegation that I asked Mr. Sinclair to perjure himself is not only completely defamatory, but lacks any sense or reason, as Mr. Sinclair’s affidavit regarding Mr. Young’s homicide can be found filed with the Chicago police department and in his book, that can be purchased on the Internet.

12. I asked Mr. Lucas Smith to authenticate Kenyan birth certificate for Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, which he previously tried to sell to the highest bidder on E-bay. Again, any allegations that I asked Mr. Smith to perjure himself is absolutely not true, defamatory and ludicrous, as he made this information available to the public long before he ever met me.

13. As of now I am the only attorney with the courage, integrity and strength of character to not only bring forward information of Mr. Barack Obama not being eligible for the office of the presidency, but also to submit to court information from two licensed investigators, showing that Mr. Obama has used 39 different social security numbers according to national databases, including social security numbers of deceased individuals.

14. I am bringing forward evidence showing that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, [de facto] sitting president, is guilty of multiple felonies, for which he might need to spend the rest of his life in prison.

15. I believe that I am being targeted in an effort to silence me, which involves targeting my law license in an attempt to try to prevent me from proceeding with legal actions on the above issues.

I solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that all the facts stated and circumstances described above are true and correct statements.

Respectfully submitted,

NOVEMBER 5, 2009

/s/ ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.

_________________
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.

The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

FreedomFirst · ALIPAC Master Joined: Nov 18, 2008 Posts: 424

Essence of the case is whether a self-admitted FACT of dual citizenship by a Presidential candidate during his campaign should be given a RULING OF LAW about whether it comports with nbc definition. Keeping things simple would have been a wonderful thing.

With a lot of inaccuracies thrown in for good measure, a "Guest columnist" was allowed to submit this and get it published in a fairly decent circulation paper near the California bay area.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_13730967?nclick_check=1

Your Turn: Can't understand the complacency on Obama birth
By Mike Postich
Guest commentary
Posted: 11/07/2009 12:01:00 AM PST

To this day I remain baffled and somewhat dumbstruck by the complacency of the public, the mainstream media, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court for their willingness to dismiss challenges to President Barack Obama's (aka Barry Soetoro) natural born U.S. citizen status.

Yes, the election is over, and yes, I acknowledge that nothing likely will ever come of this, but it astounds me that we are in month nine of Obama, yet his eligibility to serve as president remains unresolved.

The majority of challenges to Obama's natural-born status revolve around the fact he has refused to release his original, long-form, vaulted birth certificate.

The only document he has made available is a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth. This abbreviated form does not indicate the hospital where Obama was born, nor does it include the name of the attending physician or midwife. There is no official signature of any kind verifying its accuracy.

The form also has a revision date of November 2001 and is computer generated, which clearly demonstrates that it is not the original document of his birth.

In addition, there is the oft-overlooked deposition from his paternal African grandmother who stated that she was present at his birth in (what is now) Kenya.

Obama has spent upward of $1.4 million in attorney fees ensuring that the original document of his birth never sees the light of day. Why do most of us not find this alarming and why haven't we, as a nation, demanded the truth? It doesn't end here. Among other documents Obama is withholding include his:

Noelani (Hawaii) Elementary school records.

Punahou (Indonesia) school records (fifth grade through high school, where he was registered as a Muslim and citizen of Indonesia).

Occidental College records.

Columbia University records.

Columbia thesis.

Harvard Law School records.

Harvard Law Review articles.

Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago.

Passport.

Medical records.

Complete files and schedules from his years as an Illinois state senator.

Illinois State Bar Association records.

Obama/Dunham marriage license.

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license.

His adoption records.

Any baptism records.

Perhaps Obama really was born in Hawaii. However, with this lengthy list of documents he refuses to make public, isn't anyone just a little skeptical? Just what information is Obama so desperately concealing? Americans deserve better. Some of that promised transparency please.

Postich is a Ph.D. research scientist and senior manager at a Bay Area biotech company. He is a resident of Concord.

Franciskus Assissi was one of the several Indonesian schools; Punahou is in Hawaii.

MinutemanCDC_SC · ALIPAC Hero Elite Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 1505

Bravo to Mike Postich, Ph.D., for getting this article published, even in the conservative Contra Costa Times. I can't imagine that they would have published the same under my byline.

And he gets it basically right, except for leaving out the indisputable disqualification by his Kenyan father, Barrack Obama, who in 1961 conferred to Barack Obama II his own status of a British Protected Subject. How can a British Protected Subject at birth, whose birth is governed by the laws of the British Empire, be a natural born U.S. citizen?

The grade school through high school record was confused, but that is not of the essence.

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:20 am Post subject:

Anyone have a problem with this appeals court opinion?

ANKENY v GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA - APPEALS COURT OPINION - 11120903

http://tinyurl.com/ye74alr

On page 17, we see the comment:

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Is this an appeal-able case? Is this opinion a back door technique to re-defining natural born citizen?
_________________
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:45 am Post subject:

November 12 does not seem a good day for the patriots.

BERG v OBAMA (Original Case) - JUDGMENT, Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be Affirmed

http://tinyurl.com/yjq5g27
_________________
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

MinutemanCDC_SC · ALIPAC Hero Elite Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 1505

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:22 am Post subject:

DENIES EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DROP ELIGIBILITY CASE

by John Charlton, The Post and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/yb2tg2f

(Nov. 12, 2009) — Today, the Federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the case Philip J. Berg vs. Obama et al., specifically addressing several claims Attorney Berg had made, noting on pp. 5-65 that “In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this case” that it wanted to “to put some finality to the dispute” on Obama’s eligibility. Remarkably, the Court did not consider it’s duty to regard justice, just political quiescence!

Having thus declared a political agenda, the Court’s opinion should not be surprising. It states that its judgment is “Precedential”, and cites several other cases against Obama or McCain, on the question of eligibility for office, under the Article II, Section i, paragraph 5 clause of the U.S. Constitution — namely the obligation to be a “natural born citizen”, as precedents themselves. The Court’s opinion is available on the web in its entirety.

Attorney Philip J. Berg, a life long Democrat, and former assistant Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, had brought suit before the Electoin of 2008, to challenge Obama’s presence on the ballot, on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen, and thus not eligiblie to hold the office.

Among the arguments denied by the Court, were the following. On p. 6, the Court of Appeals said:

In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[W]hen the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).

Then the Court of Appeals said, in other words, that Election Fraud was acceptable to it:

Berg’s worry that Obama, if elected, might someday be removed from office was not an injury cognizable in a federal court because it was based on speculation and was contingent on future events. As a practical matter, Berg was not directly injured because he could always support a candidate he believed was eligible. See Becker v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d 381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000) (no cognizable injury to voters when they can still cast for preferred candidate), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001); Gottlieb v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (no harm to voters who could support the candidate of their choice); Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68; cf. Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 621 (injury to voters’ ability to influence the political process too speculative for purposes of standing).

On pp. 7-8, the Court of Appeals said even if Obama was ineligible, the injury resulting does not grant individual voters standing:

Even if we assume that the placement of an ineligible candidate on the presidential ballot harmed Berg, that injury, including any frustration Berg felt because others refused to act on his view of the law, was too general for the purposes of Article III: Berg shared both his “interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws,” and the objective uncertainty of Obama’s possible removal, pari passu with all voters; and the relief he sought would have “no more directly and tangibly benefit[ed] him than . . . the public at large.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see also Crist, 262 F.3d at 195; Becker, 230 F.3d at 389- 90; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622; Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68 (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that Senator McCain was ineligible to be President under the Natural Born Citizen Clause); Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that the Twelfth Amendment barred electors from voting for President George Walker Bush and Vice President Cheney), aff’d, Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000) (summary affirmance), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001); cf. Cohen, 2008 WL 5191864 at *1 (dismissing citizen challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1146-47 (dismissing elector’s suit challenging McCain’s eligibility).

Then, in a decision stripping the entire American people of their preambulary rights, expressly retained by them according to the U.S. Constitution, the Court of Appeals denies that American citizens have 10th Amendment rights to seek judicial determination of Obama’s eligibility:

Berg also argues that he has standing “under the Tenth Amendment because the power to determine the qualifications of the President-elect is left to the states and the people after the Congressmen and Senators failed to object to the counting of the electoral votes” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15 – a statute that provides a mechanism for members of Congress to object to electoral votes after they are cast. Appellant’s Br. at 18. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., amend. X. That clause has no apparent relevance to this case and Berg’s citation to Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), is not helpful.

On p. 10, the Court of Appeals makes the equally absurd argument, that a violation of statutory obligations by the Vice President, in his capacity as Speaker of the Senate, in the Joint Session, to ask for objections to Obama’s eligibility, injures no one sufficiently, to merit standing:

Among the litany of Berg’s claims is his argument that he was injured when the “President of the Senate failed to call for objections during the counting of the electoral votes from each state . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 28. Berg supplies no factual basis for that assertion and we have no idea if it is true, but, assuming it is, Berg has been no more injured by that omission than any other United States citizen.

The Court, therefore, in summary, concluded that the case did not merit it’s consideration:

“Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiff’s claims, and they must be dismissed.”6 Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.

Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action.

The apparent determination and intention of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to end the public controversy, rather than grant a just consideration of this case, bodes ill for the likelihood of redress in the appeal of Kerchner et al. vs. Obama & Congress, which also falls under its pervue, and the filings of which appeal Attorney Mario Apuzzo is presently preparing.
_________________
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:30 am Post subject:

It looks as though our illegal POTUS wants to share American justice with others who are equally illegal and undeserving. I wonder if the 9-11ers will receive the equal protection and justice our patriot citizens have NOT enjoyed.

=================

A message to all members of Constitutional Emergency

Patriots,

The Obama Administration has announced they will bring the 911 killers that planned the event to New York to stand trial... a travesty at best.

Rather than bring them to trial under a military tribunal as war criminals at Gitmo, the Obama Administration will locate them in New York, on American soil which will give them all the rights and privileges under the US Constitution that Americans enjoy.... another travesty.......

I urge every single member of PFA to go to this web site http://www.thebravest.com/fdny.htm , read the letter, and sign your name as a supporter to stop the madness and insanity of the Obama Administration decision to bring war criminals to the United States.

The implications of bringing these 911 War Criminals to US soil is absolutely mind-boggling...it must be stopped.

Millions of Americans in the streets of New York City is the way to stop this...... when will the NEW YORK DEMONSTRATION FOR SANITY IN GOVERNMENT be held??

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret

Visit Constitutional Emergency at: http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com
_________________
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

93camaro · Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject:

Nixed CNN pact in 'Obama birther' flap

By MICHAEL SHAIN & DAVID K. LI

Last Updated: 11:33 AM, November 13, 2009

Posted: 4:23 AM, November 13, 2009

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dobbs_gave_up_on_3EsCWZGeRuYrPsFuzm8YoJ#ixzz0Wl75sCqZ

Lou Dobbs walked away from more than $9 million when he quit CNN, ending a long-running clash that boiled over during a debate about President Obama's birth certificate, sources said yesterday.

Dobbs, who will be replaced on the network by veteran Washington political correspondent John King, abruptly announced his resignation on air Wednesday night and offered no clue about what he planned to do next.

But the beginning of the end really came in July, when CNN President Jonathan Klein told Dobbs' staff in a memo to drop so-called birther stories about conspiratorial doubts that Obama was US-born, sources told The Post.

"It seems this story is dead because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef," read Klein's memo to employees of "Lou Dobbs Tonight."

Klein's move incensed Dobbs, who wasn't shy about telling off his boss.

"They have been talking pretty regularly since then," a source said. "And it's been pretty bad."

CNN had also long been asking Dobbs, known for his tough stance on immigration, to tone down his harsh rhetoric.

Last month, Dobbs' William Morris agent, CNN sources said, bluntly told Klein: "You're unhappy, he's unhappy. Let him go."

Dobbs told Klein in recent weeks he wanted to go "the opinion route," laying the final groundwork for his departure.

CNN had been unlikely to renew Dobbs' contract in 2011 anyway, sources said.

CNN is pushing hard to position itself as a middle-of-the-road news source, between left-leaning MSNBC and conservative Fox News Channel.

"Lou was polluting the CNN brand," said a TV insider.

The departure came at significant personal cost to Dobbs, who still had 1½ years left in his back-loaded, five-year, $35 million contract. Dobbs' final year would have brought him $9 million.

A Fox News Channel spokeswoman insisted her network wasn't interested in hiring the veteran.

CNN yesterday named King to take Dobbs' 7 p.m. slot, with a production starting in January.

Dobbs, on his syndicated radio show yesterday, thanked callers for their praise. When a caller from New Jersey urged him to run for the US Senate, Dobbs said: "All right, Josh. I'm taking notes."

Additional reporting by Reuven Fenton and Michael Starr

david.li@nypost.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dobbs_gave_up_on_3EsCWZGeRuYrPsFuzm8YoJ#ixzz0Wl7DTySM
_________________
Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!

MinutemanCDC_SC · ALIPAC Hero Elite Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 1505

TexasBorn · Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:32 pm Post subject:

FreedomFirst · ALIPAC Master Joined: Nov 18, 2008 Posts: 424

Newly elected governor of VA was quoted as saying "no way" to Obamacare health reform getting implemented in his state, if it's going to dump a bunch of new "burdens" onto the state's Medicare and Medicaid "share" of funding formulas, or impose a costly "public option" that hits state coffers.

California simply can't afford it either. None of the ten states identified this week by Pew Research as "basket cases" of fallen off revenues and looming sky-high deficits can afford it.

Arizona is already looking at a referendum that would amend their state constitution in ways that would allow nullification of federal "force it down their throats" proposals like healthcare or which would impede any ability of private insurers to offer options and plans which anybody could sign up for.

In the gun control area, KY and MT have either bills or laws which seek to "nullify" any federal law relating to guns in instances where a gun is manufactured, sold and owned solely inside the states.

Look for more of these nullification laws and stances to start coming to the fore as DC goes totally berserk with its push toward socialism. The Commerce Clause has been over-used to the point of abuse; officials in many states are clearly recognizing that and looking for ways to stem the tide.

HighlanderJuan · Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:25 pm Post subject:

cayla99 · Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject:

MinutemanCDC_SC · ALIPAC Hero Elite Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 1505