Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Why is there a spokesman from the Dept. of Justice making a comment about one of the cases? Did he represent any governmental defendant? This is from a newspaper The Morning Call in Allentown, PA:

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/s ... 3557.story

Supreme Court won't hear Berg's appeal
Montco lawyer claims Obama isn't natural-born citizen.
By Kevin Amerman | Of The Morning Call
January 16, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a Montgomery County attorney who claimed Barack Obama was ineligible to become president.

The justices decided Monday they won't hear Philip Berg's appeal that Obama, who will be inaugurated Tuesday, was born in Kenya and isn't a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg's lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in October, and Berg immediately petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

''It's dead in the water,'' said Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Berg of Lafayette Hill promised to keep fighting to remove Obama.

''We're not going to give up on this,'' he said Thursday.

Berg sued Obama last August, saying the Democrat ''cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural-born citizens from competing in a fair process.''

Last month, the Supreme Court turned down a similar appeal by Leo C. Donofrio, a retired lawyer from East Brunswick, N.J. Donofrio contended that Obama was ineligible to be president because his father was from Kenya.

kevin.amerman@mcall.com

610-820-6510

This same Charles Miller is quoted as a spokesman for Justice in this article about immigrants protesting some new rules for DNA testing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD95JNANG0

Immigrant advocates decry new rules on courts, DNA
By AMY TAXIN – 6 days ago

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — Immigrant rights advocates expressed outrage over two new rules going into effect in the waning days of the Bush administration, one affecting how immigrants are represented in deportation cases and another mandating DNA tests for detained immigrants.

In a decision dated Wednesday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said immigrants facing deportation do not have the right to get their cases reopened just because of shoddy work by their attorney.

Another Justice Department rule, which took effect Friday, directs federal agencies to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained by U.S. authorities.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, could not say why Mukasey issued the 33-page ruling at this time. The other rule, on DNA, had been proposed last year but went into effect this week.

Mukasey's ruling followed a series of instances in which immigrants ordered by a judge to leave the country sought to reopen their cases by citing poor legal representation.

Immigration attorneys said the rule threatens immigrants' right to a fair hearing in a community already vulnerable to fraud.

"People pretend to be lawyers and hang up a shingle and tell the client, 'I am a lawyer and am going to represent you,' and then they don't," said Nadine Wettstein, director of the American Immigration Law Foundation's Legal Action Center. "If that were to happen, this decision says, `Tough luck.'"

Nikhil Shah, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles, said he almost lost his chance at a green card because he was misled by a paralegal who pretended to be an attorney and failed to properly submit his paperwork.

Shah, who is originally from India, said he could see how easily an immigrant who didn't speak English or know the law could get into trouble in court.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said immigrants need to take responsibility in choosing an attorney.

"The broad concept is completely valid. Deportation cases are not criminal proceedings, therefore nobody has a right to any kind of attorney — let alone a good one," said Krikorian, whose group favors limitations on immigration.

Justice officials have estimated the DNA rule would put 1.2 million DNA samples into the federal DNA database each year.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Why is there a spokesman from the Dept. of Justice making a comment about one of the cases? Did he represent any governmental defendant? This is from a newspaper The Morning Call in Allentown, PA:

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/s ... 3557.story

Really good question.

I'm beginning to think everyone in government is involved in this scam of the American people. If that is the case, and our elected officials can't abide by the law, then it is time for another revolution.

What the hell is going on with these people? Why this huge cover-up?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Why is there a spokesman from the Dept. of Justice making a comment about one of the cases? Did he represent any governmental defendant? This is from a newspaper The Morning Call in Allentown, PA:

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/s ... 3557.story

Really good question.

I'm beginning to think everyone in government is involved in this scam of the American people. If that is the case, and our elected officials can't abide by the law, then it is time for another revolution.

What the hell is going on with these people? Why this huge cover-up?

Ditto

They would not let me edit this to add link....see below

CHANGE OF TACTICS!!!! This is really really long, but important. Please take the time to read it!




Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment
Submitted by Phil on Thu, Jan 15, 20094 Comments
Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment

Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in Lightfoot v. Bowen, today filed the following motion to declare that the President-Elect fails to qualify under Article 2, Section 1 and Amendment 20 (including Rule 21 (2)(B) and (4), as shown below) of the Constitution.

The relevant part of the 20th Amendment:

Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The motion in its entirety follows…

No. 08A524

In The Supreme Court of the United States

GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN,
JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL,
PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY
Petitioners;

v.

DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California

Respondent.

On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.S168690)

MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT,
THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT
BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY
UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, &
AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

January 15, 2009

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?

Question II: Should the “natural born citizenâ€

I'm not accusing DOJ of cover-up, I was just curious if any of the 'nbc' cases have had defendants who were represented by the Solicitor General. Did Berg or any of them sue the Federal Elections Commission or any federal governmental body?

His original case was against Obama and the DNC, I think. But Berg's cases -- more than any other -- get so complicated that I wondered if the interpleader by the military guy (Hollister?) or the so-called "sealed case" (no known particulars) or the additional issues raised in the Amicus Brief filed by the McCain elector from Arizona (Bill Anderson, represented by an AZ lawyer named Lawrence Joyce) had had the effect of bringing in a party that the Justice Dept. would need to defend.

Berg seems to take the approach of throwing mud against the side of a barn, hoping something will stick. I gave up on trying to read any of his pleadings a long, long, loooooooooooong time ago. At least Donofrio and Pidgeon appear to have clean records as lawyers, but Berg brings some past history and baggage.

Regardless of whether Berg is "fringe" fodder, it would be unusual for a Justice Dept. spokesman to comment on litigation not involving the DOJ (as far as is known) and if the DOJ is involved, then I thought any spokesmen who are Public Relations staff would defer to what the lawyer handling the case inside the Dept. might have to say. Or issue the standard disclaimer of "no comment" on pending litigation.


From the looks of the "Morning Call" it doesn't seem to be a high circulation newspaper

http://www.abyznewslinks.com/unitepaal.htm


Maybe it's close to where Berg has his law practice and is taking a local interest in him or his cases.

Side point

Al Jazeera Signs Deal to Air Throughout U.S.

Friday, January 16, 2009 7:17 AM

Article Font Size

NEW YORK - The Al Jazeera Network plans to announce on Thursday that it has signed a deal to run its news on Worldfocus, a syndicated nightly news program produced in New York and distributed throughout the United States.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/al_j ... ode=77CE-1

The times, they are a changin..

Wonder what made them think it was OK to broadcast in America.

Edwin Vierira is on now.

http://www.plainsradio.com/rsc.html

I hope you-all listened to the show. Fantastic!

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

His original case was against Obama and the DNC, I think. But Berg's cases -- more than any other -- get so complicated that I wondered if the interpleader by the military guy (Hollister?) or the so-called "sealed case" (no known particulars) or the additional issues raised in the Amicus Brief filed by the McCain elector from Arizona (Bill Anderson, represented by an AZ lawyer named Lawrence Joyce) had had the effect of bringing in a party that the Justice Dept. would need to defend.

From Edwin Vieira's comments on the Plains Radio broadcast last night, the sealed case could be one that contains someone's personal information.

I fear no action will be taken. Everything is closed Monday and the inauguration is tuesday. Once this takes place, no amount of evidence will make any difference. Our government has failed us in one of its most primary duties.