Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FEC joins call to throw out suit against Obama (Berg's challenge of BHO's citizenship)
The Morning Call (Allentown, PA) ^ | 10/22/08 | Kevin Amerman

Posted on 10/23/2008 7:18:55 AM PDT by Born Conservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 last
To: MEGoody
Go ahead and waste your time trying to get a judge to say Obama can't run for President. I'll be spending my time attacking him on the issues as THAT is the only thing that can stop him from becoming President.

BTW, why do you think Nobama is heading out for Hawaii today to visit Granny???

It seems there quite a few others than we who differs with your opinions!!!:

Lawsuits Starting Across the Nation Proceeding to Avert Potential Constitutional Crisis, Possible Civil Unrest, and Confidence in Elections; Lawsuits are being filed in Eight States Seeking to Require Barack Obama to Provide Certification of Birth in U.S. Or Be Removed as Presidential Candidate on State Ballots.

Seattle WA. 10/22/2008 — Lawsuits in eight states as of this writing– Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia. Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut, are seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Senator Barack Obama’s qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born U.S. Citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to force the certifying documents from Obama.

Philip Berg’s months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau yesterday as Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) failed to respond to the court that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. Citizen and therefore not qualified to run for office of President of the U.S. They admitted to Obama’s non-qualification by their failure to respond to a 30-day court ordered discovery in which Obama and the DNC were ordered to answer a petition by Berg. Berg is a lifelong Democrat in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party who has sought to ratchet up the legal pressure as Obama and the DNC has continually delayed providing certifying documentation of Obama’s birth, which he claims to have been in Hawaii.

A lawsuit in Honolulu in the First District Court is seeking a court-order to open Obama’s secret birth records. Obama has thus far neglected a Freedom of Information request for the records at two hospitals in Hawaii. Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state Superior Courts to force the states’ Secretary of State, as the chief state elections officer, to perform their state constitutional duties to require original certifying birth records from Mr. Obama that would verify his birth in Hawaii.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: ““No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

There are numerous allegations to Obama’s claim of natural birth in the U.S. On the web and in the media, all raising suspicion and doubt as to Obama’s actual place of birth and qualification to run for president. Some of the assertions to which Obama “admitted” on Berg’s suit are: he was born in Mombassa, Kenya in 1961 while his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was married to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan; when his mother, divorced from Obama Sr, moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, Obama was adopted by Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen; while in Indonesia, Obama had his name changed to Barry Soetoro; Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an Indonesian passport when Pakistan was a no travel zone for Americans; Obama had “admitted” to receiving illegal contributions in his campaign for president. Additionally, there is an allegation that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother claims that Obama was born in Kenya; Muammar Gadhafi, leader of Libya, has publicly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and studied in Muslim schools in Indonesia. Obama has also “admitted” to hold citizenship in another country (the U.S. Constitution forbids dual citizenship).

Non-partisan and independent reviews and examinations of Obama’s birth certificate as shown on his official website has evidence of tampering and in any case does not list any of the points of information commonly found which would make it traceable and verifiable such as hospital, doctor, size weight, foot prints etc.

Interestingly, all these state lawsuits would be dropped if Mr. Obama would simply provide the requested documents supporting his claim of being born in Hawaii.

Lawsuits in additional states are being added each day. For more information about each lawsuit, contact:

201 posted on 10/23/2008 1:12:37 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Vetted? Got link?

www.obamacrimes.com

202 posted on 10/23/2008 1:17:00 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Oh, right. Because she was 18 when she had him, it matters. The fact that she was a U.S. citizen (natural born I might add) doesn't matter.

YES, she would have had to 1- have him in the USofA (Hawai'i or any of the other 49) and 2- had to have lived in the USofA 5 years AFTER she turned 16 before she had a baby for that baby to be considered Natural Born. She didn't live in the USofA but 4 years after she turned 16 before she birthed Barry. And we're not sure she even birthed him IN the USofA.

And I don't think Maya qualifies as Natural Born, IF she had her in Hawai'i, because she lived in Indonesia prior to her birth.

It's always the little foxes that destroy the vine. You go counter the big ones, but it'll be the little ones that provide the opening for Truth, Justice and The American Way.
203 posted on 10/23/2008 1:26:19 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (All You Need is Money [Soros] and a Candidate Who Can Be Coached to Look Sincere [Obama]. A. Huxley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: danamco
meh... I've seen all that. ME was saying that the case was already tossed out. But then won't provide a link to said info.

Unless he just meant "vetted by an Obama supporting parasite paralegal and found to have no legs because we didn't want to find any"...

204 posted on 10/23/2008 1:26:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Do you think "President" Nobama should have security clearance???

Look here: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5983

Take a short look to the right of the site, you will find his Indonesian school registration posted, hmmm!!!

205 posted on 10/23/2008 1:33:05 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
All along I thought the argument hinged on what the constitution says. That hasn't changed.

The Constitution says natural born. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," which would of course include defining the circumstances that constitute natural born vs. someone who must be naturalized.

206 posted on 10/23/2008 1:45:27 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper
Not that I agree at all with the FEC, but standing is quite an important element of a lawsuit, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Standing, schmanding - just file a class action lawsuit on behalf of every American citizen!

</irony>

207 posted on 10/23/2008 1:50:52 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (We come to FR to pool our skepticism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

And they where right, The kid belongs to the surviving parent.


208 posted on 10/23/2008 1:56:45 PM PDT by omega4179 (Stop Hussein Vote McCain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Lloyd227
how on earth could Berg not have standing?

I've gone on in some detail on other threads about this, but here is the short version. Standing, as it relates to this matter, is a constitutional requirement. It stems from Article III's requirement that the federal judiciary hear only "cases and controversies."

In order to have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate individual and particularized injury that differs from the injury suffered by the public at large. Berg's problem is that his injury is the exact same injury that everyone else in America has: the "injury" of being offended that constitution may be violated, or, perhaps, the inability to vote for the candidate of his choice. That's also the same injury suffered by the public at large.

Because Berg can't show that his injury is different than that of the public, he doesn't have standing.

209 posted on 10/23/2008 1:57:49 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Lloyd227
how on earth could Berg not have standing?

I've gone on in some detail on other threads about this, but here is the short version. Standing, as it relates to this matter, is a constitutional requirement. It stems from Article III's requirement that the federal judiciary hear only "cases and controversies."

In order to have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate individual and particularized injury that differs from the injury suffered by the public at large. Berg's problem is that his injury is the exact same injury that everyone else in America has: the "injury" of being offended that constitution may be violated, or, perhaps, the inability to vote for the candidate of his choice. That's also the same injury suffered by the public at large.

Because Berg can't show that his injury is different than that of the public, he doesn't have standing.

210 posted on 10/23/2008 1:57:53 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

I am beyond my wits end!!! Fraud, coverups, suppression of information, non-disclosure, eating lobster, caviar, and drinking champagne.
Just about all available, at least circumstantial(very very compelling circumstantial), evidence is pointing to this, according to his grandmother,Kenyan-born Luo Tribesman, NOT BEING ELIGIBLE TO EVEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!! And now the last bastion to guard against this communist from getting elected, and they and the DNC are pressuring the courts to toss the case out?!?!If we permit this to happen our country is beyond dead!


211 posted on 10/23/2008 2:01:52 PM PDT by belgrade1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Come on! This is such palpable nonsense. Visiting a sick grandmother, who’s white, when he holds in abject and utter contempt the very white idiots who are dumb enough to vote for him?
In reference to being called to task to produce paperwork which we know doesn’t exist, I’m not a betting man but I’d cover dime that whence his return from Hawaii, with sloppy, phony, maudlin tripe over his grandmother, he’ll magically produce the documents out of his hip pocket.
FALSIFYING RECORDS DAMMITT!!! THAT’S WHAT HE’S DOING OVER THERE!!! WHY WON’T ANYONE SAY IT?!?


212 posted on 10/23/2008 2:02:01 PM PDT by belgrade1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Do you think "President" Nobama should have security clearance???

I don't think Obama should be President period, and he should not have a security clearance of any kind. But that's an issue different from whether he is classified as a natural born citizen. Not sure why you decided to change the subject.

213 posted on 10/23/2008 2:15:47 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

It isn’t me who is all wrapped up in nonsense. And you must have me confused with someone else if you think I am trying get a “judge” to do anything about Barack Obama.

My only points were that you are factually wrong, uninformed, and too quick to mouth off about subjects in which you have not been schooled. I reiterate these points now.

You are factually wrong.

You are too quick to mouth off about subjects in which you have not been schooled.

I’m done with you.


214 posted on 10/23/2008 2:38:43 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

Well, good luck with trying to get a judge to agree that Obama is not qualified to run for Prez.


215 posted on 10/23/2008 2:40:33 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: danamco
BTW, why do you think Nobama is heading out for Hawaii today to visit Granny???

Anything I say would be speculation, as would anything you would say about it.

Lawsuits in additional states are being added each day.

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Good luck on getting a judge to say Obama isn't qualified to run.

216 posted on 10/23/2008 2:42:38 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Oh, and I forgot:

You are uninformed.

Also, this is not a matter of opinion and policy. This is a matter of FACT. Facts cannot be settled through debate. They can only be learned. I suggest you try that approach.


217 posted on 10/23/2008 2:42:44 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
This is a matter of FACT.

LOL Good luck getting a judge to rule that Obama isn't qualified to run for the Presidency.

218 posted on 10/23/2008 2:43:49 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Anyone can file a lawsuit. Good luck on getting a judge to say Obama isn't qualified to run.

I fully agree with posts 214 and 217. Good By!!!

219 posted on 10/23/2008 2:48:10 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I’m done with you.

Then why did you post to me again?

220 posted on 10/23/2008 2:50:34 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

I guess I just felt an irresistible urge to call out stupidity and dishonesty.


221 posted on 10/23/2008 2:53:50 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I guess I just felt an irresistible urge to call out stupidity and dishonesty.

LOL No, you just lost control of yourself again. Try anger management classes.

222 posted on 10/23/2008 2:57:04 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: danamco
I fully agree with posts 214 and 217. Good By!!!

You also seem to fully agree with wasting time filing lawsuits that won't go anywhere so you can look like a lunatic instead of pressing Obama on the issues.

223 posted on 10/23/2008 2:58:14 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper

Sounds to me like any citizen would have standing, given that you need to be qualified to be a candidate.


224 posted on 10/23/2008 3:03:18 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
"Because Berg can't show that his injury is different than that of the public, he doesn't have standing"

Thanks, that makes sense once I get my head around it but.... there must be a way to force the DNC and the Candidate to follow the law. In the absense of someone in some government institution stepping up, how exactly do you file suit to halt this sham election or at least forst the other party to prove eligibility? Surely there's a way to move it forward???

225 posted on 10/23/2008 4:56:20 PM PDT by Lloyd227 (Class of 1998 (for the moderators who tend to think we don't support McCain enough))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
I don't understand why this Standing Argument can't be settled. As an American Citizen the Constitution is a social contract to which I am a party. I have a right to expect my President to qualify for the job according to that document. If he does not qualify then my rights under that document (to a President who does qualify) have been abridged.

Voila! Personalized Individual Harm.

226 posted on 10/23/2008 6:36:58 PM PDT by politicalmerc (NObama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

>It also implies that a citizen has no standing to demand that elections be conducted according to the US Constitution unless that citizen can somehow prove quantifiable personal damage if the Constitution is violated?

Of course, if the average citizen cannot ask questions of the movings of politicians things will run so much smoother for the government.

>Are we in Catch-22 here?

Yes. But I’ll bet the Judiciary doesn’t see it that way.

>The FEC is against vetting a candidate for President of the USA. wtf?

Yep! Because, if anything, it would show them as incompetent.


227 posted on 10/23/2008 6:42:46 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

I havae 5 mg audit tape who knows how to make available on Freepr? From todays Michael Savage todays show with Phillip Berg.

democrats Denial of service atttach on Michael Savage website.


228 posted on 10/23/2008 8:05:37 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER ( “If you're not ready to die for it, put the word ''freedom'' out of your vocabulary.” – Malcolm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lloyd227
there must be a way to force the DNC and the Candidate to follow the law.

Lloyd, I can think of a couple ways. The first would be a proper plaintiff, who would be someone like Hillary, or, perhaps McCain (though for obvious political reasons, McCain would stay out of this fight). A loser to Obama in the primary would probably have standing, too. Hillary is the strongest plaintiff in my mind.

A second way is through the political process. Congress is textually charged with counting the votes for President, so presumably, although the constitution is not clear on this point, Congress has the authority to determine whether a candidate is qualified and could thus receive votes. Again, probably won't happen here because of the majority democrat congress, but it's a vehicle to resolution.

You might be thinking that neither choice is going to provide a satisfactory resolution, and that's true. But some provisions of the constitution, as a practical matter, just aren't enforceable. For instance, Congress doesn't publish the budget expenditures of the CIA, despite that the Constitution textually requires all government expenditures to be published--there's been litigation over this that has been dismissed for lack of standing. No one has the right vehicle to bring a challenge, and that's just the way it is.

If you're interested more in this subject, take a look at Ex Parte Levitt, which involved a citizen challenging a Supreme Court appointment, and United States v. Richardson, which was a challenge to the CIA budget secrecy.

229 posted on 10/24/2008 4:53:37 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: politicalmerc
As an American Citizen the Constitution is a social contract to which I am a party.

Not good enough. Your harm isn't particularized. It is not sufficient that you have suffered the same harm as the general public. Take a look at Ex Parte Levitt. In that case, Justice Black, while a member of the Senate, was appointed to the Supreme Court while having voted, during his Senate term, for a government funded pension for members of the Supreme Court. This violated the plain text of the constitution.

The Court held that this was nonetheless insufficient to confer standing because the plaintiff was only harmed as a member of the general public.

230 posted on 10/24/2008 5:00:44 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
I see your point. I had never read some of those cases before. I still disagree with it. I think their is individual harm though it is a general harm also.

Oh Wait. . . They didn't ask me did they...

231 posted on 10/24/2008 5:43:55 AM PDT by politicalmerc (NObama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Thanks, really appreciate the time you took to help explain things.


232 posted on 10/24/2008 5:55:34 AM PDT by Lloyd227 (Class of 1998 (for the moderators who tend to think we don't support McCain enough))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Lloyd227

My pleasure.


233 posted on 10/24/2008 6:18:28 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Exmachina

SCOTUS = Supreme COurt of the United States
POTUS= President of the United States


234 posted on 10/24/2008 6:19:14 AM PDT by offduty (I Support Joe the Plumber....he's fresh and articulate...wait, someone already said that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Publius Valerius said:

“Not good enough. Your harm isn’t particularized. It is not sufficient that you have suffered the same harm as the general public. Take a look at Ex Parte Levitt. In that case, Justice Black, while a member of the Senate, was appointed to the Supreme Court while having voted, during his Senate term, for a government funded pension for members of the Supreme Court. This violated the plain text of the constitution.

The Court held that this was nonetheless insufficient to confer standing because the plaintiff was only harmed as a member of the general public.”

Yet companies like Exxon have been able to be sued by people who have had no more particular harm then the rest of the general public. Many enviromental lawsuits are based upon harm that is not particular to the individuals that are bringing the case to court or even to any specific indicidual at all. Many of these suits are based upon the standing that it is harming society as a whole.

There is possible fraud and a crime being committed in this case that would bring future harm to Mr. Berg and to the nation as a whole.


235 posted on 10/24/2008 5:56:27 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: FreeRepublic

I have to admit that I am really outraged at the motion filed by the FEC.

They claim that it is not there place to verify the eligibility of a presidential candidate and I offer no opinion on that but...

But if they are truely a bi-partisan commission that has no role in determining the eligibility of a presidential candidate then why do they take the side legally of the Obama campaign and the DNC?

This point really annoys me. It dosen’t seem right at all. How can we trust them to oversee that elections are free and honest if they do not believe that citizens even have a legal right to know that candidates are legally eligible?


236 posted on 10/24/2008 6:04:39 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Many enviromental lawsuits are based upon harm that is not particular to the individuals that are bringing the case to court or even to any specific indicidual at all. Many of these suits are based upon the standing that it is harming society as a whole.

For these types of cases, the Court has laid down some fairly particularized rules. Check out Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and its progeny for more on environmental standing.

237 posted on 10/27/2008 4:48:48 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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