For years, the were accepting a "Letter of No Record" instead of a birth certificate.
Thankfully, they seem to have become a little more stricter in just the past couple of weeks.
Posted on 10/28/2008 12:29:53 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
SEATTLE — A King County judge said Monday that a lawsuit challenging Sen. Barack Obama's qualifications to be president "may be a positive idea," but threw it out because the law clearly prevents the secretary of state from getting involved.
Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed does not have the authority to inquire into Obama's birth certificate and determine if it is valid or not, said Superior Court Judge John Erlick. Therefore, Reed is obliged to accept the nomination and keep Obama's name on the state ballot, Erlick said.
Doing any external fact-finding "is not authorized by the state constitution or state law or administrative rule," he said.
Erlick dismissed the lawsuit, noting that plaintiff Steven Marquis failed to name Obama as a party to the lawsuit.
"The 2008 general election is already in progress; ballots have been issued and a substantial number of voters have voted," said the order signed by Erlick.
snip
Erlick asked Marquis just what he wanted the court to do.
"Make a request that the court can actually deal with," he said.
"I would like you, the judge, to direct Sam Reed to develop a process for revealing the credentials for Obama to be a candidate," Marquis responded.
The only opposition in the courtroom came from Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey T. Even, who represented Reed.
Addressing Marquis' proposal that Reed get involved, Even said, "I'd much rather have Mr. Obama here to say, 'Here's the proof.' Then it could be decided on merit."
(Excerpt) Read more at tri-cityherald.com ...
And?
It really sounds like Berg knows more about this from reading those admissions. The DNC filing has been kept more quiet than the Obama filing.
And what?
Correct me if I am wrong, but “standing” (the ability to show one’s self as the injured party and thus elibible to seek relief) has limitations applied by the courts. Some for “prudential” reasons.
There is no ability to sue federally “as a tax-payer” for what you consider improper use of federal tax money as your role as such is too generalized. You could sue for actions by your city in State court, but not for State actions in State court.
An elected member of the electoral college might be able to sue for injunctive relief, an opposing candidate for the same office might be able to sue (if he wanted to look like he wanted a fiat win from the courts instead of election by winning with the voters) or similar direct injured parties could file a suit or request for injuntive relief.
For years, the were accepting a "Letter of No Record" instead of a birth certificate.
Thankfully, they seem to have become a little more stricter in just the past couple of weeks.
It can be challenged in congress when the electoral college ballots are being counted.
However with the Democrats in charge of both houses, I have little faith of such a challenge going far unless the challengers in Congress are willing to take the issue to the Supreme Court, and the court is willing to step in.
John / Billybob
Without a default ruling against the DNC and Obaman, the fact that they didn't respond doesn't mean anything except for that they likely already knew the case would be dismissed without a ruling against them.
Berg can take that up with the Supreme Court, but as of right now, I don't think Obama or the DNC has legally admitted to any of that.
That is B.S.
RCW 29A.20.010
Preservation of declarations of candidacy.
"The secretary of state and each county auditor shall preserve all declarations of candidacy filed in their respective offices for six months. All declarations of candidacy must be open to public inspection."
Sam Reed has an implied duty to insure a candidate is qualified under the U.S. Constitution if it is questioned. Failure to do so is a violation of his oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and a violation of:
"RCW 9A.80.010 - Official misconduct (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor."
This statute also references:
RCW 42.20.100 - Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.
"Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor."
These duties include implied duties.
If Obama has falsely certified that he is eligible, he has violated:
RCW 9A.72.030 - Perjury in the second degree.
"(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree if, in an examination under oath under the terms of a contract of insurance, or with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her duty, he or she makes a materially false statement, which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Perjury in the second degree is a class C felony."
In the state of Washington, a public official - especially an elected executive officer - has the inherent power to take whatever action necessary to properly carry out his duties, and that can easily include requiring a candidate to prove his eligibility.
Then there is the general principle that the courts have the inherent power to formulate a resolution when no specific procedure exists. The only reason one does not exist in this case is because no other person running for President has ever had their eligibility questioned.
RCW 29A.20.021 - Qualifications for filing, appearance on ballot.
"(1) A person filing a declaration of candidacy for an office shall, at the time of filing, be a registered voter and possess the qualifications specified by law for persons who may be elected to the office.
(4) The requirements of voter registration and residence within the geographic area of a district do not apply to candidates for congressional office. Qualifications for the United States congress are specified in the United States Constitution."
It is reasonable that if qualifications to appear as a Congressional candidate are specified ion the U.S. Constitution, then the same criteria must apply to Presidential Candidates and it is therefore the responsibility of the WA SoS to require Obama to prove he is qualified when questioned.
If Obama filed a false statement, he is guilty of a violation of:
RCW 43.07.210 - Filing false statements — Penalty.
"Any person who files a false statement, which he or she knows to be false, in the articles of incorporation or in any other materials required to be filed with the secretary of state shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW."
All one needs to do is file a criminal complaint with the WA AG, the Thurston County Sheriff and Thurston County Prosecutor; with a copy to the governor. They would all have a statutory duty to investigate, which would mean they would be required to demand Obama furnish proof of his eligibility.
This is not that complicated.
This person should file an immediate petition for a writ of mandamus with the WA SC to force Sam Reed to require Obama to prove he is qualified to be a candidate for president. While the WA SC is totally corrupt, there are likely exactly five justices who would vote to grant the petition. See RAP 16.2
If I still lived in WA, I'd do it myself.
A person could also seek post election relief as well.
Americans do not know enough about Obama to vote for him. His past is very secret.
Bump for later reading...btw it was great to see the Hawks win!
ping
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 Philip Berg, Fox News, API, Standing, and the United States Supreme Court
I spoke with Philip Berg this afternoon as he sat in his office, awaiting a crew from Fox News Channel in New York. While interest in his lawsuit among those at Fox has been steadily mounting over the past few days and weeks, Berg does not know exactly in what capacity the end product of the taping will be used.
"At this point," Berg said, "the nation just needs to know that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as president of the United States, that he has so far successfully hidden behind procedure, and that we could very well be headed toward a constitutional crisis unless this is addressed."
And he is indeed working toward ensuring that the issue is addressed, Berg said, and has been spending the past few days preparing for his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, a move which could happen by the end of the week. This, of course, has caused him to shift other items to the proverbial back burner, including but not limited to the so-called Michelle Obama tapes purportedly possessed by editorial staff at African Press International.
With regard to API, Berg says that he's not so sure what has come or will come of it. "My name is associated with it," he said, "but now I see that there's a Canadian name associated with it too, and that they are claiming to have provided the tapes to Fox News or someone else. I don't know."
Still, even with the focus shifting to the Supreme Court appeal, the odds of the highest court in the land actually granting certiorari and hearing Berg's case are slim. Even though appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first exhausting other options in the Circuit Court level, while a rare move, can be done with regard to substantially urgent matters, the Supreme Court is presented with approximately 8,000 petitions for certiorari each year but only grant about 75 to 120 of those.
In the unlikely event that four Justices decide to hear the case, Berg will first have to establish that, contrary to the arguments put forth by Barack Obama and the DNC and the specifics of the decision rendered by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, he indeed has standing to sue. As I've pointed out in these pages before, the standing doctrine as it stands today does not bode well for Philip Berg.
To have standing, a plaintiff must satisfy a three-prong test. He or she must prove (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressibility -- that they've sustained more than just general harm, that the harm can be traced to the conduct of the defendant, and that adjudication of the matter can provide a remedy to that harm. Berg's biggest hurdle, so far, has been establishing injury in fact.
Now, while there is a three-prong test for standing, there is no such definitive test for establishing what exactly constitutes an injury in fact. Instead, whether or not a plaintiff has sustained an injury in fact depends upon how that plaintiff's factual allegations are perceived by the judge on what has been described as a sliding scale of speculation, creativity and remoteness. In other words, if the factual support of a plaintiff's claims is deemed too speculative, too remote, or too creative, then the judge may not find injury, and visa versa.
In the past, the United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must have a "personal stake" in the matter being adjudicated. This, of course, is to ensure that the matter belongs before the court in the first place. More recently, however, the Court has paid greater attention to, and awarded standing for, plaintiffs who can show enough of an injury so as to provide something along the lines of a good contest among legal rivals
In Constitutional Law class last year, we studied a few cases while looking at the standing issue. One was a case in which a group of environmentalists were given standing by the Supreme Court because the need for preservation of "environmental well-being" was enough to prove injury. In another case, an association in Washington state was deemed to have standing even though it was the individual members, and not the association itself, which could be found to have had the requisite "personal stake."
That being said, in the unlikely event that this case is heard by the Supreme Court, Berg will need to argue, certainly among other things, that the injury deemed too generalized by Judge Surrick is indeed enough to show injury in fact and therefore gain standing to sue. Only then can this case be heard on its merits.
In the meantime, this election is only a week away. Talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors. Some will be too far gone to the political left. Others will be open to discussion. Regardless, make sure that people get out to vote next Tuesday, because the best way to stop Barack Obama from gaining the presidency is not through the court system but at the ballot box.
Thanks Brown Deer.
Ping.
Check out #24 and #72, also.
this country has gone insane for sure. we are letting the enemy defeat us from within using our own systems against us.”
That is one of the main items in William Ayers plan to destroy America.
"I don't think the FF's ever considered that there would be any doubt as to someone's qualifications."
If that were the case then why would they mention several specific requirements?
In this case they don't even seem worried about the possibility that Obama may not be a citizen at all. In that situation, he'd be an illegal alien and subject to deprtation.
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.