Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollister v Soetoro Updates
Scribd ^ | 10/20/2009 | rxsid

Posted on 10/20/2009 1:53:28 PM PDT by rxsid

HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (et al)

APPELLE BRIEF (09/04/2009)

UNOPPOSED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (09/22/2009)

EMERGENCY MOTION (w. Declaration of L. Liberi) (09/22/2009)

APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (09/22/2009)

MOTION (09/23/2009)

EMERGENCY MOTION (09/28/2009)

PER CURIAM ORDER (10/20/2009)

CLERK'S ORDER (10/20/2009)


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: berg; certifigate; hollister; obama; soetoro
The recent updates in the HOLLISTER v SOETORO (et al) in the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
1 posted on 10/20/2009 1:53:29 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rxsid
What do it mean?
2 posted on 10/20/2009 1:54:36 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Ask not what the Kennedys can do for you, but what you can do for the Kennedys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; BP2; STARWISE; Red Steel; pissant; hoosiermama; null and void; Amityschild; Calpernia; ...
Ping...Hollister v Soetoro recent court docs.
3 posted on 10/20/2009 1:54:43 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

K? Thanks for telling us what we are seeing.

Gotta go make some money.

later.


4 posted on 10/20/2009 1:55:25 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Gregory S. Hollister,Appellantv.Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a naturalperson; de facto President in posse; and as dejure President in posse, also known as BarackObam a, et al.,Appellees———————————————Consolidated with 09-5161
O R D E ROn September 23, 2009, appellant Hemenway filed a motion for judicial notice. Anyresponse was due by October 8, 2009. To date, no response has been received from theappellees. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it isORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that appellees show cause by October 30,2009, why the motion for judicial notice should not be considered and decided without aresponse. The response to the order to show cause may not exceed 20 pages.FOR THE COURT:Mark J. Langer, Clerk


5 posted on 10/20/2009 1:56:21 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

WhatdOiT———————————————MeAn?


6 posted on 10/20/2009 2:00:57 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Ask not what the Kennedys can do for you, but what you can do for the Kennedys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
appellees show cause by October 30,2009

Come back at the end of the month.

7 posted on 10/20/2009 2:04:36 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Quote:
"What this means is that Larry Joyce who is the Lead Attorney for Col Hollister and always has been has asked the court to remove for his client what was filed by John Heminway who was the sponsoring Attorney for Larry Joyce and Phil Berg. This information that John Heminway filed was in no way filed with Larry Joyce knowing that John Heminway was filing what he did. In fact Larry Joyce filed his own Brief in behalf of Col Hollister. Larry Joyce was recently addmitted to practice law in the DC Circuit court so Larry no longer needs a sponsoring attorney. Pro Hac Vicei is the term for a sponsoring attorney.

Larry's Brief makes a much stronger argument than that of John Heminway. John can use whatever he wants to try and have his sanctioned order although pointed out that the judge cannot sanction Heminway, the threat of the sanction can be remove from the court record and that is what Heminway is trying to do."

by "Admin" on October 19, 2009, 02:25:48 pm
as a response to a question about what the "APPELLANT GREG HOLLISTER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW MATERIALS FILED IN HIS APPEAL ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2009" meant

http://obamaexposed.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,57.msg247.html#msg247

b.t.w. that forum is a "temp" forum since the obamacrimes forum has been "down" for weeks now.

8 posted on 10/20/2009 2:06:48 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Bump. Read for later.


9 posted on 10/20/2009 2:11:22 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

ping

Hopefully, someone will explain all this.


10 posted on 10/20/2009 2:11:43 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

In the MOTION (09/23/2009), are some interesting tid-bits in which other eligibility cases are mentioned, the DNC certification issue(s) are brought up, Leo's work on the HI statues, Cheney's not calling for objections during the certifying of the EC votes, etc:

"Attachment 1: This is a copy of the statute of Hawaii, circa 1982 which specifically empowers the officials of that state to grant a birth document to a child born outside the state in the preceding year. The statute was the same in the year in which the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama was born."
...
"Attachment 2: Here we present the statutes of Hawaii concerning freedom of information in the situation where a state official, in this case Dr. Fukima, has made a statement. The statutes empower a citizen to have access to the support for the statement. In this instance Dr. Fukima, who is a doctor and not a lawyer or constitutional authority, stated that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama was a “natural born citizen,” thus seemingly overruling the United States Supreme Court, or purporting to. The New Jersey attorney Leo C. D’onofrio, who has initiated litigation about Obama’s eligibility, through a reader of his blog and web site, after Hawaii officials refused to disclose the information as required by Hawaii law, is preparing a freedom of information suit. It will be filed before this case is finally fully decided and we will call to the Court’s attention the actual documents in the case as they appear in the court in Hawaii."
...
"Attachment 3: This is the statement under penalty of perjury of Lucas Smith supporting a document filed in the related case of Barnett v. Obama, case no. SACV09-00082-DOC (Aux) Judge Carter."
...
"Attachment 5: Here we present documents from the official proceedings of the Democratic National Committee during the proceeding of certifying to the state electoral college officials the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama as official nominee, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, presiding as a party official but still bound by her duty of honest services. She apparently either herself or through someone under her supervision, altered the document to eliminate the specific certification of constitutional eligibility, raising the presumption of irregularity. "
...
"Attachment 6. Here we present excerpts from the proceedings of the United States Senate during the electoral proceedings along with the statutory excerpts showing the requirements and it is clear that the Honorable Vice President Richard Cheney, sitting as President of the Senate, failed to issue the required call for objections, raising the question of whether or not the process was in fact completed or if objections should now officially be called for."

11 posted on 10/20/2009 2:27:33 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bookmark.


12 posted on 10/20/2009 2:40:21 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

This is Berg’s case? I know Phil Berg and Mario Apuzzo are getting the slow treatment.


13 posted on 10/20/2009 2:44:54 PM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's health care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

This quote makes no sense, and I can’t access the linked site. I would venture a guess the ‘admin’ is not a lawyer.


14 posted on 10/20/2009 2:46:47 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I believe that “Admin” is involved, in some way, with Attorney Berg (at least, connected with his assistant(s) and the previous forum)...but not certain about that.


15 posted on 10/20/2009 2:56:37 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Yes, kinda. Larry Joyce is the lead attorney on the Hollister case.


16 posted on 10/20/2009 2:58:10 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

ok, so I am somewhat lost here. If these are the attachments the attorney Larry Joyce filed an ‘emergency motion’ to remove on behalf of Hollister, why ?? It seems Heminway did the right thing by putting them in the record.


17 posted on 10/20/2009 2:59:35 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I never heard of Larry. ???


18 posted on 10/20/2009 3:03:16 PM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's health care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Translation of the court orders:

Berg and Hemenway filed appeal briefs (appealing from the district court's dismissl of their lawsuit) which were longer than the rules allow. The Court of Appeals refused to take them; the appeal process now has to start over and they have to file shorter briefs. The defendants will then respond to those new briefs and the plaintiffs will have to file new reply briefs.

In the meantime, Hemenway filed a motion for the court to consider additional evidence (including Orly Taitz's alleged Kenyan birth certificate). Berg said he didn't want that additional evidence considered and that it should be considered to have been filed only by Hemenway. The defendants (Obama and Biden) didn't respond to the motion to consider additional evidence, but the Court gave them further time to respond.

19 posted on 10/20/2009 3:04:03 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Well, when did this Larry Joyce become “Lead Attorney” ? “Admin” says he is and always was “Lead Attorney,” but if Joyce was only recently admitted into the court bar, and wasn’t representing Hollister in the District Court, how does that fit?

I thought in the lower court the judge called both Berg and Joyce “agents provacateurs” and santioned Heminway only because they weren’t admitted to his court and Heminway was? This whole entry by “admin” sounds like someone else involved in some of these cases.


20 posted on 10/20/2009 3:04:59 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Appellant Col. Gregory S. Hollister requests leave of this Honorable Court to withdraw certain materials filed in his own appeal (09-5080) on September 23, 2009, specifically, Docket Entry ID 1207877 (a motion for judicial notice) and its supporting materials denominated as Attachments 1-3, Attachment 4, and Attachments 5-6. (See also “Docket Part(s) Added: 2753598, 2753600”.) We apologize to this Court, to the Appellees, and to counsel for their having been filed for Appellant Hollister instead of for Appellant Hemenway alone. They were filed only as a result of a lack of communication with attorney Lawrence J. Joyce who, immediately prior to the filing of these materials, had become responsible for Appellant Hollister’s portion of this appeal; these materials in fact should have been filed only on behalf of John Hemenway himself, the attorney who filed these Case: 09-5080 Document: 1208531 Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 1 materials with this Court, for his own, consolidated appeal in this case (09-5161). Appellant Hollister makes no request to withdraw these materials as they pertain to John Hemenway’s appeal of the reprimand issued against him by the District Court in this case. For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant Hollister moves for leave to withdraw these materials from his appeal in this case (09-5080) or, in the alternative, for this Court to disregard such materials and to decline to consider them with respect to his own appeal.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 28, 2009 _____________________
Lawrence J. Joyce

According to that "Admin" comment, John Heminway was the sponsoring Attorney for Larry Joyce and Phil Berg in the D.C. District court. Apparently, sometime within the time frame of these filings, Attorney Joyce was admitted to practice law in the D.C. court system. Furthermore, they allege "Larry's Brief makes a much stronger argument than that of John Heminway."
21 posted on 10/20/2009 3:10:56 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
That would seem to confirm your surmise that the person making the comments was involved with the case and likely witih the brief that this "admin" thinks is stronger. I am not sure that that is the case. I also find in the record below that the attempts by both Berg and Joyce to be admitted in the District Court were denied. Apparently Joyce was only recently admitted to the U. S. Court of Appeals as sponsored by Hemenway according to the record and his "admin" promptly attacks Hemenway gratuitously. It is also a question as to the wisdom of withdrawing the request for judicial notice as soon as admitted; that seems more peevish than wise and it is difficult, under the circumstances of the case to see the advantage of it, vieng the reliance of the judge below upon "blogging and twittering" on the Internet.

From the two orders of today, it would seem that the court of appeals panel was not impressed with it.

22 posted on 10/20/2009 3:19:30 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

Thank you.


23 posted on 10/20/2009 3:22:45 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
There does not seem to be anything in the record indicating that Hemenway's brief was either longer than the rules allow or that it was rejected. It is on the docket as having been filed.

Nor does it appear that Joyce or Berg ever filed an opening brief but rather a motion to be allowed to file one late, which would now seem to be moot.

You always seem to more interesting in attacking the filings than in accuracy. To whom do you report on your efforts.

24 posted on 10/20/2009 3:24:07 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
That would seem to confirm your surmise that the person making the comments was involved with the case and likely witih the brief that this "admin" thinks is stronger. I am not sure that that is the case. I also find in the record below that the attempts by both Berg and Joyce to be admitted in the District Court were denied. Apparently Joyce was only recently admitted to the U. S. Court of Appeals as sponsored by Hemenway according to the record and his "admin" promptly attacks Hemenway gratuitously. It is also a question as to the wisdom of withdrawing the request for judicial notice as soon as admitted; that seems more peevish than wise and it is difficult, under the circumstances of the case to see the advantage of it, given the reliance of the judge below upon "blogging and twittering" on the Internet.

From the two orders of today, it would seem that the court of appeals panel was not impressed with it.

Sorry for the typo.

25 posted on 10/20/2009 3:26:39 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
It is all laid out in this Order.
26 posted on 10/20/2009 3:28:17 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

What evidence is there that he is the “lead attorney?” I can’t find any nor any evidence that Berg is invovled other than to take credit. Taitz sued Liberi in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Berg answered and sued back for Liberi, who would seem to be working for Berg. Taitz accuses Liberi of some serious things in the law suit. It was all posted on the site Citizens Against Pro-Obama Media Bias as not being helpful to the attempts to get something done. It would seem that Liberi is now working for Joyce but I don’t see any evidence that Joyce was involved in the case signficantly until recently in the record. It seems the court of appeals is signalling their long time member to get this group coordinated and is doing the case a favor in doing so.


27 posted on 10/20/2009 3:33:51 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Your link brings up a motion.


28 posted on 10/20/2009 3:34:29 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

You link to Hemenway’s motion for judicial notice, a tactic then adopted by Taitz in her case in the Central District of California. There is certainly nothing in the motion that speaks to Hemenway’s openng brief, which was accepted for filing and never pointed to as being in excess of any page limits. The docket entries indicate the inaccuracy of what you say. I repeat, to whom do you report in making these inaccurute representations? I would think the operatives for the One would take more care.


29 posted on 10/20/2009 3:42:18 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory; EDINVA
Sorry; wrong link. I was basing my post on this order.
30 posted on 10/20/2009 3:50:37 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
There is certainly nothing in the motion that speaks to Hemenway’s openng brief, which was accepted for filing and never pointed to as being in excess of any page limit.

The order linked above requires a new joint brief for both appellants to be filed by November 30.

I repeat, to whom do you report in making these inaccurute representations?

I have been a FReeper since 1998. I have no agenda in posting on the eligibility threads beyond correcting the misapprehensions that some non-lawyers have about the legal process. And nothing I have posted is inaccurate.

31 posted on 10/20/2009 3:56:56 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Don’t forget your agenda also includes posting cutesy racial remarks which betray your ignorance of the 14th Amendment and other constitutional matters.


32 posted on 10/20/2009 4:04:58 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The docket clearly shows that an opening brief was filed by Hemenway for himslelf and Colonel Hollister was accepted. If you are so familiar with court systems one would think you would check that out before making inaccurate assertions and posting to a motion filed by Hemenway as if it were an order. The Order which was filed to today says nothing about the brief filed by Hemenway for both himself and Hollister being rejected. The Order today sets a schedule for new briefing but does not say anything about the opening brief filed by Hemenway for himself and Hollister that the docket clearly shows was accepted. So you are being inaccurate.


33 posted on 10/20/2009 4:24:39 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I have no agenda in posting on the eligibility threads beyond correcting the misapprehensions that some non-lawyers have about the legal process. And nothing I have posted is inaccurate.

I for one, appreciate it. A lot.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

34 posted on 10/20/2009 4:25:27 PM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
The Order today sets a schedule for new briefing but does not say anything about the opening brief filed by Hemenway for himself and Hollister that the docket clearly shows was accepted. So you are being inaccurate.

The order sets a schedule for new briefing by both appellants.

35 posted on 10/20/2009 4:27:41 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Yes, which gives Hemenway another shot to file jointly but it does not vacate or reject his already accepted brief which was filed for himself and Colonel Hollister. It would seem like an excellent opportunity if whoever is the “administrator” and Joyce don’t mess it up. It woudl seem that the panel sent a signal in that regard.


36 posted on 10/20/2009 4:38:23 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thanks for helping us lay people.


37 posted on 10/20/2009 4:41:28 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/01...NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rxsid


Judicial Notice: Craig v. U.S.

U.S. Native Born have no RIGHT to be named a Natural-born Citizen

Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.

The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.

The Obama eligibility pundits demand that all citizens born on US soil – despite whether they be born of alien parentage – have a Constitutional right to be President in that it would be a deprivation of their civil rights if natural born citizen status is not granted to them.

This is the mantra of those who support that Obama is a natural born citizen even though Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth via his father who was never a US citizen.

But the status of “natural born citizen” is not a right owed to native born US citizens. In fact, it’s not a right owed to any US citizen because nbc status is simply not in any way, shape or form a “right” at all.
38 posted on 10/20/2009 5:12:32 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Clever tagline can only be seen on the other internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
That was a great brief!

Thanks!

39 posted on 10/20/2009 5:19:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Ask not what the Kennedys can do for you, but what you can do for the Kennedys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Ditto!


40 posted on 10/20/2009 5:22:26 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
John at OCT makes a good point:

I think Gary Kreep’s argument was much stronger than Orly’s. Obama can not be impeached for his ineligibility because being ineligible in not a crime.

Yes, Obama can be impeached on fraud and other crimes based on his eligibility, but he can’t be impeached solely on his ineligibility.

However, Obama can still be removed. Provisions in the Constitution state the POTUS can removed if he dies or resigns. However, when the POTUS dies or resigns, he is not impeached.

Further, the POTUS can be removed if the POTUS has a condition that renders him with the inability to discharge his duties. Being ineligible would fall under this. While the courts can’t remove the POTUS from office, I submit that the courts certainly have the power to determine if Obama is ineligible or not since this ties directly to a consitutional provision.

With a judgement that Obama is ineligible, Congress would compelled to act and they treated Obama as if he had died, resigned, or had a stroke. No impeachment would be necessary and Biden would become the POTUS.

41 posted on 10/20/2009 5:35:46 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Clever tagline can only be seen on the other internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Injury in fact to Presidential Candidates running against ineligible candidate(s)

Whatever4 at OCT makes a good point:

Minor parties also can be harmed even if they have no shot at winning. Federal matching funds depend on the results of this election. “Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.)

The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party’s popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote.

The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate’s popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.”

42 posted on 10/20/2009 5:46:06 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Clever tagline can only be seen on the other internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
Further, the POTUS can be removed if the POTUS has a condition that renders him with the inability to discharge his duties. Being ineligible would fall under this. While the courts can’t remove the POTUS from office, I submit that the courts certainly have the power to determine if Obama is ineligible or not since this ties directly to a consitutional provision.

That argument runs into a couple of legal problems. Federal courts, including SCOTUS, do not have the jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions in the abstract, by giving an "advisory opinion" to Congress. They have the power to decide constitutional questions only if that question comes up in the course of deciding a lawsuit. Because the court has no power to impeach Obama or order him to resign, it cannot give Congress an advisory opinion on Obama's eligibility.

43 posted on 10/20/2009 5:51:19 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.

Precisely! Thank you!

44 posted on 10/20/2009 6:24:02 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
U.S. Native Born have no RIGHT to be named a Natural-born Citizen Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.

The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

******

In the 2012 presidential primaries , will Democratic Parties in each state demand that candidates provide long form birth certificates along with their applications before they are allowed to put their names on the ballots?

Will Secretary of States in each state demand that 2012 presidential candidates attach a long form birth certificate to their applications before they will be allowed to put their names on the primary ballot?

45 posted on 10/20/2009 6:58:41 PM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Where do you find Berg in this? His name appears NOWHERE in the docket. It may be that this new attorney, Larry Joyce, is his surrogate, but Berg’s name doesn’t appear anywhere in the docket or the briefs that were filed.


46 posted on 10/20/2009 6:59:14 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson