This thread is for playing out Phil's cases in an actual court. We get to present Phils evidence against Obama in its entirety. And we get to break down his case and Obama's logical responses in court. OK?
Phil is asking for discovery.
What's next?
I agree
Voting is Disabled
9 votes
I disagreeRank2678
Idea#3762
This idea is active.
Vote Activity Show
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Disagreed3 years ago
-
Agreed3 years ago
(latest 20 votes)
Similar Ideas Show
Legal & Policy Challenges
»
Feedback Score
55
Rank922
10 comments
for Idea: Lets have a scientific fact based look at 911.
Comments (43)
-
Why are you afraid of discovery? Mr. Transparency should have turned over all of his personal documents BEFORE the election. McCain and Palin did. What is he afraid of??????????????????????
00 -
We're in court now. That may be a valid question. But we're not there yet. We're arguing about discovery. Obama's lawyers are saying no. Phil is saying yes. What is the court saying?
00 -
Not only will he never get discovery, he will not be able to establish standing. Sorry. The cases will go nowhere but dismissal...
00 -
Allison!!! Oh ho, ho, ho!! You birfers are in trouble now!!!
00 -
Rikker, LOL. Glad to help out where I can...
00 -
I'll tell you what's wrong with discovery. For one thing, Berg will allege perjury every time one witness'es memory is different from another's. If any documents are misplaced, Berg will allege obstruction of justice. If Berg asks somebody what his exact words were 15 years ago and the witness says he doesn't remember, Berg will yell cover up and accuse the witness of lying.
Witnesses and defendants have to pay legal bills. Witnesses who worked in the Clinton White House had to often pay $350,000 in legal fees. Who will pay the costs if some passport stamper from 1981 Pakistan has to travel here?
Such a circus would require countless hours preparing and complying. Important attention to other significant and real problems would suffer. Minutes at the White House are precious.
An investigation by Berg would intrude on private matters from here to Indonesia. Berg would never stop asking for more information.
And what could be achieved through all this? Nothing! The same people who are after Obama would just say it was a cover up if the investigation came up empty. They'd even say Berg was an Obama plant and stuff like that. Remember when Larry Klayman accused Ken Starr of covering up for Clinton?
The rest of America already recognizes birthers are kooks. No reputable person would want to be associated with the investigation, as their reputation could be lumped in with those of a bunch of nuts. Someone would have to be forced to go through all this.
Any reasonable person who looks at this whole thing realizes immediately this is an obvious hoax.
00 -
It isn't going to happen. First, Berg is a terrible lawyer and consummate liar. Second, he has no standing and no possible relief (strike two). Third, he has no evidence other than some silly brochure from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands that has nothing to do with birth certificates required for proof of birth location. (Strike three). A federal judge actually laughed at this evidence as he sanctioned attorney Hemmenway and said he would have sanctioned Berg if he were not such a pathetic loser desiring the attention.
Yep, that is your guy Berg. :) Hello and a big shout out to Rikker.
00 -
1st Amendment recognizes every Citizen has Standing in any Case that arises under the US Constitution.
Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,....
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
"to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity"
All citizens have Standing to file a petition.
Its obstruction of Justice to deny Citizens Standing to file a Petition and then GRANT STANDING TO FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS, THIS GOVERNMENT IS DOING.
Every one who loves this country should be outraged at the crimes being committed by Government under the color of law
00 -
HR 1207 Would make an audit of the Federal Reserve happen and be public. I think all financial records of every member personally should be public, Health Records of Potus and VPotus should be necessary as well as tax returns. Any money spent and on what should be made public by each commitee that oversees the spending. All bills signed into law should be made public including those who signed it. The Presidents Curriculum Vitae should be made public and any jobs and decisions he made should be made public. The President's long form birth cerificate should be made public and his former performance records in school and work should be made public. I have to prove mine when I apply for jobs and my 8 year old needs the long form birth certificate just to play soccer. The President promised a new age of transparency well let's have it then.
00 -
carpenturr: Standing has its own legal meeting within the courts. I forget all the rules, but I think one of them is that the person doesn't have standing to sue if he suffered no harm.
Suppose you buy a washing machine from Maytag and they fail to honor a warranty. You can sue them. I can't sue them, because I've suffered no harm. I wouldn't have standing.
There are other rules too. While the 1st amendment is important, it doesn't say the courts must hear every suit and can't dismiss frivolous ones. While philosophically I agree that the people are the true holders of power, they must exercise that power within the law. You may feel that you have the right to demand proof of something, but then, what about everybody else? Can we all sue? Can we all demand proof our suspicions are wrong? Can you imagine what would happen if that was the rule?
You as a citizen are free to petition government, or exercise your first amendment rights to promote your side of this issue. You just can't force the courts to assist you.
00 -
creeksneakers2 writes:
"Suppose you buy a washing machine from Maytag and they fail to honor a warranty. You can sue them. I can't sue them, because I've suffered no harm. I wouldn't have standing"
True
But Obama has the ability to affect the lives of every single citizen in America.
Just look at all of us out here as Maytag Washers.
The use of the Doctrine of Standing has as much stability in law as jello as it places very real people kept out and barred from having the Court Try the Facts of very real suffering all of us can with an impostor and a fraud in the WH.
The Doctrine of Standing was invented by the Court itself, out of thin air.
Of course I do not have a case for his suffering due to faulty service of some piece of equipment, but that is not a good analogy for filing a grievance of being defrauded by deceit from an Election.
All Citizens have Standing to file when an election has given us an impostor, if that be the case and I believe it is.
But the ONLY recourse any of us has is the Legal System.
If the Legal System bars the door to citizens and opens it to foreign combatants, we have a REAL PROBLEM
00 -
The doctrine of standing was devised to uphold majority rule. Otherwise, everytime losers like carpenturr1 lost, each one of them would sue. And the courts would never get shut of the stench.
00 -
In sum, the doctrine of standing, or standing to sue, is a court-created “doctrine” which determines whether or not the court will hear a particular federal lawsuit. The courts have held the plaintiff in the lawsuit is responsible to prove his “standing to sue.” There is no legislative support nor regulation for this “doctrine” as is the case for most other court processes such as court rules of operation. Thus the terms, conditions and interpretations of the “doctrine” are entirely in the discretion of the court and therefore many times in the court’s history been altered, amended or subjugated for a specific court lawsuit. Using this “doctrine” the courts determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit in question.
As the “doctrine” is literally decided on a case by case basis, it is nearly impossible to describe the conditions by which standing is met as they may be altered at any time by the court. The classic standards are that usually advanced in legal papers discussing standing are: (1) that the injury alleged by the plaintiff is imminent; (2) that the alleged injury is “concrete and particularized” rather than a “general grievance;” (3) that it is “likely” rather than merely “speculative” that the alleged injury will be redressed by a favorable judgment. However the courts have at various times established several “prudential” or gatekeeping rules which include “independent and adequate standing,” “mootness,” “ripeness,” “political question doctrine” and “prudential.”
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Standing.htm
Now compare this issue of Standing now being given to unlawful combatants who wage war and terror under no nations flags and should be shot if the law was respected and followed today.
This doctrine is against all laws and treaties and never done before, and goes against the Supreme Court precedence on cases just like it right after WW2.
Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)
The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.
00 -
Put simply, the doctrine of standing holds that only persons that are directly harmed (like losing presidential candidates) my sue. If you were a member of a group that was generally harmed (like Republican voters in 2008), you may not sue.
What's hilarious is the lengths that citizens will go to so show that they were harmed directly.
"Obama's election caused me to lose my lunch!! i'm suing for the cost of that Happy Meal!!"
"Obama's election caused my property taxes to go up!! I'm suing for the difference between my taxes this year and last year!!!"
"Obama's election caused me to spend thousands of dollars trying to locate his long form vault BC!!! I'm suing to recover those costs!!"
Obama's lawyers simply file for, and receive, dismissals in all these instances. No millions of dollars, no hundreds of thousands of dollars, no tens of thousands of dollars. Maybe ten grand total.
00 -
realitycheck: "A federal judge actually laughed at this evidence as he sanctioned attorney Hemmenway and said he would have sanctioned Berg if he were not such a pathetic loser desiring the attention.
Yep, that is your guy Berg. :) "
LOL!!! Good old Judge Robertson!!!
Stings a bit, doesn't it, carpenturr1?
00 -
Fraud is the issue that surrounds every part of the man Barry Soetoro (Obama) and his life.
His fraudulence gives all citizens standing to petition for redress of a grievance.
Glad to see this knowledge is gaining all across the USA.
Its well known in Kenya
00 -
"His fraudulence gives all citizens standing to petition for redress of a grievance."
I can see every U.S. citizen revving up to sue him now....and the president slips his lawyer a sawbuck and says, "file for dismissal!!"
Who is going to win that one, carpenturr1?
00 -
I understand the issue of "standing" as the opposing candidate in a race, in this case John McCain, would have standing. Something I'm wondering about is if the Judiciary itself has standing. It strikes me as the business of the Legislative branch, if anyone were to be charged with examining, deciding and reporting on this.
I haven't followed the various court cases in great detail enough to know, but has any judge commented on the propriety of the Judiciary, vis a vis the separation of powers, acting on these cases? Has it come up anywhere?
Or am I completely off?
Thank you.
00 -
Every presidential candidate, including John McCain and Alan Keyes, has standing. Absolutely. I've been saying this since Day 1.
Keyes is using Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz to sue. But they are asking for Occidental College records, not the Hawaiian BC. Obama's lawyers are correctly pointing out that the Constitution doesn't specify college records as one of the three requirements for the presidency. Obama's lawyers will win.
McCain traveled to Chicago last summer and verified Obama's Hawaiian COLB to his own satisfaction. That's why he assured that bag lady at one of his town hall meetings last autumn that Obama is, indeed, a citizen. He scoffs at these birfer claims.
Alan Keyes could travel to Chicago and see Obama's paper BC for himself. It's at Obama's Chicago headquarters. Keyes doesn't avail himself of that opportunity.
I wonder why?
00 -
You are missing the point, maybe deliberately. Obama is selling our sovereignty, taking away our freedoms and forcing this country into long-term debt to the Feds. Not showing proof that he is qualified to be the President, according to the US Constitution, is a tool that can be used to get him impeached. It could go either way but not trying is a guaranteed failure. It should be obvious to you by now that there is a large group of people who do not feel comfortable about his constant lawyering up to prevent this from going to court. This activity is suspect. Obama did not engineer this on his own.
00 -
"It should be obvious to you by now that there is a large group of people who do not feel comfortable about his constant lawyering"
It should also be obvious to you that there is a larger group, by a factor of tens of millions, who think you guys are nuts. They are called 'voters'.
00 -
Bmonrikker,Your idiot namecalling was way out there.To TRY and connect any birther to the psycho nut job at the Wash.shooting was even worse.You should retract and apologize.But you won't.Cowardice and ignorant namecalling ,is all you got.So Sad Too Bad,
Read on and reconsider your statement.
James von Brunn, the man who allegedly shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., was a Darwin-lover who hated the Bible and Christians, and defies media efforts to classify him as a stereotypical "right-winger," according to reports.
The Moonbattery blog revealed von Brunn advocated the socialist policies espoused by Adolf Hitler and used Darwinian theory to support his anti-Semitism.
And in statements that later were stripped from an anti-religion website, he wrote, "The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION … CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES."
The blog had an answer to how to classify von Brunn, who remains hospitalized after being shot while attacking and shooting a guard at the museum: "If it barks like a moonbat, it's a moonbat."
Von Brunn's diatribe on religion, according to the website, included:
"The New Testament was written in Greek. Paul – who believed the World was flat, that Joshua made the sun stand still, and Jehovah spoke from a burning bush – wrote one-third of it, perhaps more. The events described in the 24 Books are often contradictory, fail the time-line, defy both archaeology's and nature's immutable laws, and are suicidal if practiced. Nevertheless, the shamans bought it, taught it, and the illiterate public was coerced, brainwashed, threatened, tortured, murdered, and enthralled. … The Gospels profess that only Christians may enter Yahweh's Kingdom of Heaven. To qualify, among other demands, Christians must LOVE THEIR ENEMIES (Jews); give away their personal belongings; eschew knowledge; judge not, despise nature, abandon earthly pleasures, acknowledge that all YHWH's children are equal; and above all else worship YHWH, the jealous, wrathful, vengeful, unforgiving, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god (Jesus' father) created by Hebrews in their image and likeness. Omnipotent, omniscient YHWH promises Hebrews that they alone shall inherit the earth, that it is commendable to steal from Gentiles, better yet — kill them. Whereas Gentiles, if they fail to worship YHWH, are transported straight to Hell. And it is written, 'A little child shall lead them.' These dangerous, imbecilic, concepts, tenets, and teachings, often treasonous, DESTROYED the Roman Empire and drenched the soil of Europe with Aryan blood for almost 2000 years!"
According to writer Kathy Shaidle at Examiner.com, von Brunn left a trail of "unhinged" writings.
"The anti-Semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most 'white supremacists,' many of von Brunn's political views track 'Left' rather than 'Right.' Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue," she wrote.
Von Brunn, for example, hated both President George H.W. Bush as well as George W. Bush, and the writer confirmed his posting "reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists."
"None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg's bestseller 'Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,' which clearly demonstrates that 'fascism' of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect 'leftwing' views as 'rightwing' ones," Shaidle wrote.
She noted anti-Semitism, in fact, is something the "New Left" and the "Far Right" have had in common since the 1980s.
"That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama's former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed 'the Jews' for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well," she wrote.
She wrote that von Brunn clearly was "deeply confused," but isn't the "mainstream conservative and/or rightwinger currently being depicted on leftwing blogs and by liberal commentators."
"In short, von Brunn's connection with conservative thought and action today – be it talk radio or 'tea parties' – is tenuous. Those trying to puff up such 'connections' are acting in bad faith, out of blind partisanship – of the sort which is as corrosive to the health of the body politic as von Brunn's own b[l]atherings," Shaidle wrote.
On the Examiner forum page, the assessments on von Brunn ran along similar paths:
• The man is a lunatic irrespective of ideology.
• This loon is now responsible for the same number of dead as Teddy Kennedy is!
• The guy is a nut, as was the abortion [doctor] killer, and the Army recruiter killer. There is extremism across the political spectrum. Have you ever heard that stereotyping people can be unhealthy and even dangerous, and something I hope we discourage in this liberal society.
Author Jame Glazov, whose book "United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror," is a rising star, also has examined the links between the left and tyranny.
Glazov, who is managing editor of Frontpagemag, wrote, "As history shows, leftist beliefs have spawned mass carnage and misery. Put into practice, they have caused the deaths of millions. Until now, it has been extremely difficult for rational people who value personal freedom to understand the motivations of those who live in comfort and yet embrace monstrous dictators, ideologies, and policies that leave only death and destruction in their wake."
Glazov in his book "presents startling new insights into the toxic beliefs and torturously contorted thought processes of the leftists who lust to destroy the very freedoms that allow them to exist."
Glazov, a refugee from the Soviet Union, contends there is an unholy alliance between jihadists and people such as Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Ted Turner and Noam Chomsky. At the heart of the mutual admiration, he says, is a willingness to accept massive numbers of deaths to achieve their objectives.
What's bound to be most infuriating to those Americans and many other westerners mentioned in the book is the way Glazov uses their own words to make the point.
"Not only do I think it's possible [a Muslim-leftist alliance] but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already," explains leftist British lawmaker George Galloway. "It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries, mainly Muslim countries."
Only lunatic fringe apologist say things like this,,
"And Senator McCain, who is a good man and
a solid American patriot"
By pushing the democratic agenda on amnisty? He's a RINO just your kind too.
00 -
Some of the people who voted for Obama did not even know the issues. Those who did know, and understood them, didn't vote for him.
There is serious voting machine fraud. It has been documented. Diebold machines have no record of accountability. The counter is in control.
It scares me that there are people like you in this country. You have very limited ways of expressing yourself. You repeat yourself continuously and your response does not have any validity. Your insults alienate you. This is my last response to your nonsense.
00 -
"It should also be obvious to you that there is a larger group, by a factor of tens of millions, who think you guys are nuts. They are called 'voters'."
I assume you did not mean factor, that would be more humans than currently living.
And even when you correct this error, you are still wrong.
There is a group of people (A) who have seen and read the eligibility claims and believe it is worth further investigation (The Birthers)
There is a group of people (B) who have seen and read the eligibility claims and believe it is bogus and in your words think the Birthers are nuts (you and your peers)
There is a MUCH larger group (C) of people who do not have an opinion either way because they do not know there is a question and have not read the claims. (voters)
By presenting a twisted view of these three groups, you claim that the C group have already made a decision and are actually B people.
That is not true.
You also claim that B(+C) out numbers A by a FACTOR of tens of millions. Which is ridiculous.
I propose that B is larger than A, but only marginally. That is more an artifact of the demographics and internet use patterns.
I believe liberals tend to be younger than conservatives. I also believe that younger people use the internet more. The internet is the main source of information for these issues.
Thus, more liberals have been presented the issue, but in a bias way.
i.e. You show the data to 1000 liberals and 100 conservatives stating "This is right wing conspiracy". One would expect more people from that sample to believe it is a conspiracy. And thus lending some support to your claim.
A fairer analysis and comparison would be what percentage of a cross section of people believe it is a valid issue if presented in a fair and balanced way.
00 -
redkite,
I'm actually a fairly fair guy. I was unbiased about this issue when I first heard about it. I asked some fairly sharp questions of people like Linda Starr and Lisa Liberi. I asked them for evidence of birther claims.
They provided nothing but "ifs", "maybes", "I believes" and "it could have happened like this". Since then, that hasn't changed.
Then I examined Phil Berg's evidence in its entirety. His whole case is a crock of sh*t. That's when I jumped onto the president's bandwagon. It wasn't until February that I found out that this entire birfer exercise was an orchestrated Republican October surprise that failed.
You birfers have the right to continue to ask questions. But I also have the right to continue to demand the first shred of evidence that will stand up in a court of law. You have none. And that's why I irritate you.
00 -
Also redkite, this is a pretty good analysis:
"There is a group of people (A) who have seen and read the eligibility claims and believe it is worth further investigation (The Birthers)
There is a group of people (B) who have seen and read the eligibility claims and believe it is bogus and in your words think the Birthers are nuts (you and your peers)
There is a MUCH larger group (C) of people who do not have an opinion either way because they do not know there is a question and have not read the claims. (voters)"
It is certainly more mathematically accurate than my "factor of tens of millions" statement. But I was going for volume in my statement, not accuracy.
Birfers assume that Group C is as dumb about the law as the birfers themselves. Anti-birfers know that even if that statement is true, the judges who will decide these cases are all in group B. If they aren't there right now, every one of them will be after they read the evidence.
Also, the people in group A may BELIEVE the eligibility claims deserve investigation. But not one of them has shown any confidence in the legal merits of the case thus far. Instead, they have spent time and energy complaining about the laws as written, because the laws are uniformly against their beliefs.
Another of Berg's cases was slapped down today. He's chirping about the injustice of it over at obamacrimes.com.
00 -
"You birfers have the right to continue to ask questions. But I also have the right to continue to demand the first shred of evidence that will stand up in a court of law. You have none. And that's why I irritate you."
You actually irritate me and I respond when you make ludicrous claims as fact.
Re: 'Stand up in court'
We do not know yet, the evidence has not been presented in a court. The cases thus far have been dismissed because of legal procedure, not evidence and no ruling given. The dismissal of the Hollister case is going to an ethics panel to see if the Judge dismissed because of extreme prejudice and bias.
As you are also drawing the comparison that the 'voters' have already ruled and he is eligible. I am simply saying that they were not given all of the facts or told it was an issue before they ruled (voted). And as such, the question and evidence needs to be disseminated and available to all of the voters in a fair and unbiased way.
I do not know if the evidence will ultimately show him to be eligible or not. I just question why the evidence has not been made available for public (voter) scrutiny.
00 -
The birth certificate issue was raised before the election. Obama posted his birth certificate on his campaign website.
00 -
Redkite,
Actually, the evidence HAS been made available to the public. Phil Berg has been pretty good about posting the girth and depth of his evidence. That's one reason I know so much about his cases.
He actually DID file an affidavit with a Canadian BC signed by Dudley Doright. PLEASE. Tell me, do you think the courts should take him seriously?
He actually DID file a tape of the Shuhubria interview with Sarah Obama. But he cut off the tail end of the tape where his hired interviewer (Ron McCrae) admits that Granny Sarah was confused when she said "yes" to his question about Barack Jr's birthplace. Clearly, she thought he was asking about Barack Sr. NO WHERE ON THE TAPE DOES SHE SAY: "I was present when Barack Jr. was born in a hospital in Mombasa". And yet, Phil QUOTES her as saying that on the tape, AND HE SUBMITTED THE TAPE TO THE COURT. What do you think will happen to the credibility of that tape when Obama's lawyer points that out?
What will happen when Obama's lawyers subpoena the PUMAS who invented this story? Do you think they aren't known? I know one of them personally. When that happens, what will happen to the birfers? Will they come to these sites and claim she perjured herself? Yes. They will.
Most of all, what will happen when Obama produces the paper copy of the COLB he received from Hawaii, the same document that is posted on his site? That's all they are going to send him. If he requests another one, all he will get is a duplicate of what he has. THERE IS NO LONG FORM BC FORTHCOMING. IT'S NOT THERE. Will the birfers continue to claim conspiracy? Yes. They will.
I may be irritating you. But it's only because deep down, you know I'm telling the truth. And the truth is conflicting with your own notions of reality.
00 -
Look at what we are dealing with here
================================================
redkite16 writes:
"You birfers have the right to continue to ask questions. But I also have the right to continue to demand the first shred of evidence that will stand up in a court of law. You have none. And that's why I irritate you."
=============================================
Do you understand why we have a Court?
A Justice System?
You do not express yourself in a way that anyone can tell.
The Court is the only place everyone of us have to air out this problem, and try the facts.
This is no different than when a District Attorney makes a criminal charge against some person.
He has circumstantial evidence he uses to bring the charges, and the person charged is given his day in court to prove his innocence.
I am charging Obama with Fraud.
He is breaking Faith with the American people by keeping all his records hidden contrary to all sound reason and is actually forbidden by Article 4 of the US Constitutuion.
This man Obama is not above the Law.
He is not a King
He is a hired hand and has a job Description of duties to preform for the Nation, not just you democrats or whatever you are.
He has not been transparent himself and shows himself cynical to even use the word as he stonewalls all the information about his BC, his Passport, his Adoption Records, and his School Records.
Why is he keeping this information hidden?
The more he refuses to be transparent, the more fuel he is adding to the fire for demanding he stop his fraudulent lying and open up and be TRANSPARENT.
Otherwise he is nothing but a lying hypocrite and undermines all confidence of the office he shows disrespect for by his contempt for America, the Law and our System of Government.
00 -
carpenturr1: "I am charging Obama with Fraud."
And he's teabagging your nostrils one at a time in sheer indifference. Your boy Berg's fraud case against Obama was thrown out of court yesterday. Are you claiming to be a better lawyer than the estimable Phil Berg?
00 -
Look, carpenturr1, I can empathize with you.
If you walk into a gym and see the Los Angeles Lakers warming up at one end of the court and a bunch of fourth grade girls warming up at the other end, you've got a pretty fair idea of who is going to win the game.
If you walk into a court and you see Johnny Cochran at one table and Phil Berg at the other, you've got a pretty good idea of who is going to win the case.
Phil Berg and Orly Taitz are all you've got. Neither of them has ever won a case in court, EVER, as far as I can determine. Both of them are Paypal loyalists.
You say you just want your day in court. I'm not sure that you do. Isn't it better to have some doubt about your position than to go into court and have some judge codify your incompetence into law?
00 -
blackmonrikker,
"Your boy Berg's fraud case against Obama was thrown out of court yesterday."
I am having so much trouble keeping up. I would like to read more about this event yesterday. Do you have a link?
Thank you.
00 -
evreport: It's posted at www.obamacrimes.com. Here is the synopsis: Berg claims Obama obtained his senate salary by fraud since he is not a citizen. Jeffery Holder refused to look into it.
For Immediate Release: - 06/11/2009
ZPressReleaseObama061109.pdf
(123.01 KiB) Downloaded 5 times
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Refuses
to Prosecute President Obama
Under False Claims Act whereby Obama was accused of
Defrauding the U.S. Treasury by Illegally being a
U.S. Senator from Illinois as Obama is an Illegal Alien, not a
U.S. Citizen
Berg brought action against Obama and after months of
delay Holder’s Staff refused to investigate
Berg raised issue of “Conflict of Interest” and why Discovery
was “not” turned over
and Judge Roberts Dismissed case against Obama on June 9th
obamacrimes.com is the web site for the truth about Obama
(Washington, DC – 06/11/2009) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator
Obama's lack of Constitutional "qualifications/eligibility" to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al, announced today that United States Attorney General Eric Holder refused to prosecute President Barack H. Obama for Obama illegally running for and holding the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois because he was Constitutionally ineligible to be a U.S. Senator.
False Claims Act [FCA] case is when a person has knowledge that another party has obtained money from the Government based on a false claim. In this instance, in order to be a United States Senator, you must be a United States Citizen for nine [9] years. Obama is not a United States Citizen and therefore, usurped the Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois and obtained payment from the U.S. Department of the Treasury based on his false statements that he was a U.S. Citizen and constitutionally eligible to serve the position of United States Senator.
Berg said, “What a miscarriage of justice! At a closed door hearing on June 9, 2009 because of the status of the “sealed case,” sealed because of the nature of the case, that being a “Qui Tam” or FCA [False Claims Action] case, the Attorney General through his representatives refused to proceed with the prosecution of Obama for fraudulently serving as a U.S. Senator from Illinois for 3 ½ years. [FCA cases are usually used in Medicare/Medicaid fraud cases]”
Berg continued, “I presented overwhelming evidence that Obama was ineligible to be a U.S. Senator and therefore, Obama fraudulently
received a salary and benefits of nearly $1 Million Dollars. Since the case was ‘Dismissed with Prejudice’ it is now ‘Unsealed’ and the record is open for review. The case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-1933 and is available on Pacer or our website, obamacrimes.com.
I, Phil Berg, will be Appealing this case !” Berg said, “During oral argument, I raised the issue of a ‘Conflict of Interest’ as Attorney General Holder’s boss is the President Barack H. Obama, so how could they properly review this case? I suggested the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
I also raised the issue that any Discovery used in the Government’s decision to have the case dismissed, which was secured by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General’s Office should be turned over to me as the Relator, however, no Discovery was turned over.”
Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution entrusts the Executive, which includes the United States Attorney General, with duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Berg stated, “I am very disappointed that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder through his Staff has failed to uphold his duties.”
Berg concluded, "I am not giving up and am continuing my legal fight to prove Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President of the United States. I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in 'our' U.S.A., for 'our' forefathers and for the 1.5 million men and women that have died defending our Constitution in the many wars over the years and the 1.5 million men and women who were injured in those wars,"
* * * * * * *
The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama's lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.
As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue - having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention.
Status of Cases:
Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Briefs have been filed by all parties.
This is case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of "standing" by Philip J. Berg
This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court - where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
However, case is still alive in the Third Circuit. Oral argument is tentatively scheduled for September/October 2009.
Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court, Case No. 08-cv-1933
Case originally filed under seal on 11/07/08. The Government moved for the dismissal of the case that was granted on June 10, 2009 at which time Judge Roberts ordered the case unsealed. Case will be appealed.
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama - must he obey an Order by legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified "Usurper" President.
Case was dismissed and Sanction of “Reprimand” imposed on our local attorney.
Appeal has been filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We are waiting for the briefing schedule so we can file our
opening briefs.
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
00 -
Berg said: "Berg continued, “I presented overwhelming evidence that Obama was ineligible to be a U.S. Senator"
Now you birfers cannot continue to say you evidence hasn't been judged on the MERITS.
Of course, you can continue to say all these judges and prosecutors are in the tank for Obama.
But who's listening?
00 -
What a riot, blackmon. He's suing Orly Taitz, too, apparently.
Thanks very much.
00 -
evreport, Yeh, he is suing Orly Taitz. And Linda Starr and Ed Hale, too.
If I told you the REAL story behind that lawsuit, you would bust a gut laughing. These birfers are TOTAL morons, and their titular leaders are moron kings. I don't have to go thru Allison to testify about this birfer lawyer cannibalism. I have DIRECT knowledge.
00 -
I was just reading on this website:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Amusing:
Keyes v Bowen: Cost Awarded
Adding insult to injury, the Court has awarded the following cost in the case Keyes v Bowen
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1 . That the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is dismissed;
2, That respondent Secretary of State Debra Bowen shall recover costs in the amount of $350.00 pursuant to Government Code section 6103.5;
3 . That respondent President Barack Obama shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;
4. That respondent Vice-President Joe Biden shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;
5. That respondent Joe Perez shall recover costs in the amount of $___.
June 11, 2009 Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause |
00 -
I'm not at all surprised. It's another birfer smackdown.
But it DOES provide a wealth of information!! I've been saying that all the president has been doing is filing for dismissals and getting them. He filed for a dismissal in this case and asked for attorney fees. They awarded him $520 for the cost of filing the dismissal.
So if we multiply that figure by the number of dismissals (15-20), we can get a rough figure of how much Obama has spent on these birfer cases. LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. JUST LIKE I SAID.
00 -
our standing in this case is that this man just added more than 60,000 dollars to every Americans household debt.If that isn't injury then what is?
00 -
Yeh, Jefferson, you go 'head on and try that one. Tell them the dog ate your homework and you couldn't come up with a better expression of harm. I'm sure the courts will listen to you.
Not.
00 -
rejean:
I don't believe Sean Penn is is willing to accept massive numbers of deaths to achieve his objectives.
00 -
Guys, Standing emanates from Article III of the US Constitution:
Article III:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html
and, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show `a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
00
Social Web