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

Skip to comments.

With Supreme Court Conference Looming, a Q&A with Philip Berg
America's Right ^ | 1/5/2009 | Jeff Schreiber

Posted on 01/05/2009 2:29:18 AM PST by Hang'emAll

At approximately 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2008, I was in the Clerk of Court's office in the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia doing part of my job as a legal writer and reading the civil cases which had been filed that day. (Snip)

After the man left, the clerk told me that I should probably take a look at the complaint. (Snip)

You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama. Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. Ee sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since. (snip)

Okay. Back to the case.(Snip)

Do you think the scheduling is because Justice Scalia knows more about three of his colleagues than he lets on, and things that they’ll grant cert on Friday, or do you think that they’re merely putting all aspects of this case through the progressions so as to ward off future actions?

I don’t know. It could be either. It certainly is interesting. Two conferences make it unique. The order of the docket entries kind of makes it unique.

By scheduling the injunction for a week after the petition, does that mean that they are considering the injunction ahead of time? (Snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at americasright.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911conspiracy; 911truthers; berg; bho2008; birthcertificate; blackhelicopters; certifigate; donquixote; eligibility; obama; obamatruthfile; rinobullies; scotus; tinfoilhats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Long and good reporting on the Berg lawsuits with recent interview with Berg. I had to do a lot of cutting to get the article into 300 words, so go to the source for a more coherent and interesting read.

Provides insight into the mechanics of the process.

1 posted on 01/05/2009 2:29:18 AM PST by Hang'emAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

I still think the Supremes are planning to kill this. If I read correctly Berg’s is the last case. Personally, I don’t trust or like Berg because of the 9-11 thing. If they had any intention of reviewing this in a meaningful way, they would have done so already.


2 posted on 01/05/2009 3:35:31 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

Berg’s was the first case, not the last. There are plenty more in the pipeline.


3 posted on 01/05/2009 3:39:35 AM PST by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MVV
Last night on Cunninghan's show Mr. Berg said he thought BHO may already getting black mailed
I've thought this for a long time.
The clintoon machine is powerful. They had the investigators searching all over for dirt on BHO. Long before Berg or anyone else had a clue.
Now the clintoon machine will be back in power with the figurehead of BHO. His entire cabinet and other appointments are clintonestas.
Pretty obvious, eh?
4 posted on 01/05/2009 3:53:18 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll
It would be hi-freakin-larious if after all this time, after all the manipulations and evasions by the Obamunist camp, that Barry Soetoro is disqualified from becoming President because he ran under a false name, and under false pretenses.
5 posted on 01/05/2009 3:56:01 AM PST by mkjessup ("An empty limousine pulled up in front of the White House, and Barack Hussein Obama got out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mickie

There’s something I truly don’t understand. Why wouldn’t Hillary reveal all this dirt on Obama and just knock him out so she could win the Presidency? Did she actually believe she couldn’t beat McCain?


6 posted on 01/05/2009 4:08:10 AM PST by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto

She probably got the information too late. So she waited until she could make her demands.


7 posted on 01/05/2009 4:10:44 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto
Another thing, being Secretary of State is a very powerful position.
Her and Bill are multimillionaires already. Pretty soon they're be billionaires.
Wonder what happened to her little "friend"? What was her name, Lola or something? She keeps away from the camera.
8 posted on 01/05/2009 4:16:35 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

I am disturbed that the Supreme Court won’t protect the constitution with this simple request to prove that the incomming president is a US citizen, qualified to be president. It’s fundamental. It’s their job to protect the constitution. It’s also alarming that even the conservatives on the court refuse to do so.


9 posted on 01/05/2009 4:16:41 AM PST by irishfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto

She would have lost the black voters and Obama voters.


10 posted on 01/05/2009 4:16:58 AM PST by Hang'emAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: irishfox

It bothers me that Supreme Chief Justice will swear in a usurper of power without questioning it.


11 posted on 01/05/2009 4:19:38 AM PST by Hang'emAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

Will the supremes risk, Levenworth, to abet this treason?


12 posted on 01/05/2009 4:30:37 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

Betcha it didn’t bother the traitors in SCOTUS for a nanosecond.


13 posted on 01/05/2009 4:32:13 AM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Waco

***Will the supremes risk, Levenworth, to abet this treason?***

Who will put them there.?

They certainly dont risk Leavenworth. The Constitution is what is at risk.


14 posted on 01/05/2009 4:48:19 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nipfan

I see...Berg seemed to indicate that his was the first and last case...I was wondering about that. Are there any cases pending that have more legitimate people involved? I do not like Berg nor do I trust him.


15 posted on 01/05/2009 4:58:12 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mickie

Hillary had such high negatives that she would not have won over McCain. The base would have been there, even for him, if Hillary was the alternative.

This was the way for the unelectable Hillary to become the Queen. The Secretary of State has tremendous opportunities to conduct world wide protection rackets. Plus she is 4th in line for POTUS in case things happen...


16 posted on 01/05/2009 4:59:30 AM PST by helpfulresearcher ( Bipartisanship is just a PC word for Collaborating with the Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nipfan

I can’t for the life of me fathom how ANY US Citizen could NOT have standing to bring such a suit as this. SO...there should be another 60 million or so lawsuits on the horizon, IMO.


17 posted on 01/05/2009 5:12:01 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: helpfulresearcher

Do you think Hil ‘n Bill are blackmailing BHO?


18 posted on 01/05/2009 5:18:52 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

I believe that one of these Obama non-citizenship cases will have him DQ’d. You can’t change the rules after the game starts- otherwise Arnold Schwarzenegger may have pursued the Presidency or altered his strategy.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244


19 posted on 01/05/2009 5:19:00 AM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

I think that is the only explanation. She couldn’t risk alienating all those voters.

The Dems know the truth too. A willing conspiracy against the Constitution.


20 posted on 01/05/2009 5:19:19 AM PST by jch10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

>>> Dr Orly Taitz has paperwork in the SCOTUS pipeline too. <<<

No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.


21 posted on 01/05/2009 5:22:17 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

What is the case about...birth certificate or natural born?


22 posted on 01/05/2009 5:29:22 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
Berg said last night on the Billy Cunningham show that although you cannot email them, the SCOTUS do read all of their mail.
He said to go to his web page to get the letter to send to all the justices, each letter addressed to one of the SCOTUS and put all the letters in a manila envelope and mail it to them for $2.
All the addresses are on his site......but I cannot remember what that address is.
Anyone else know it?
23 posted on 01/05/2009 5:31:19 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

I think you’re right. She realized that if she knocked out Obama by exposing him, blacks and the far Left would stay home. Since she had a solid, solid 50% who would NEVER vote for her, she would have had no chance of beating McCain without blacks and the hard Left. As it was, look how they trashed her just for staying in the race.

It’s hard to see how she could profit now by exposing 0bama, but easy to see how she could be profiting by blackmailing him, and how she can profit as Sec’y of State. She and Bill will be billionaires in a few years.


24 posted on 01/05/2009 5:33:29 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

“People in the upper echelons know that we’re right. Obama has been vetted by the FBI and the Secret Service and other agencies responsible for that sort of thing. We have that information from people overseas. He’s been vetted, and those agencies, those people in the upper echelons know the truth.”

I know this is true. A lot of my clients are in the military and are in a position to know. Obama’s eligibility is very much on thier minds. When I asked if they know about his citizenship issue, they just look at me and say, yes, we know the truth. That is all that they will say.

It was the same with John Kerry, they vetted him too and found out that the Swiftboat vets were right on.


25 posted on 01/05/2009 5:37:39 AM PST by waxer1 ( Live Free or Die; Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy
Both! The California SOS has failed to verify the eligibility of Obama, claims Taitz.

Years ago, Eldridge Cleaver was determined to be ineligible for the office he sought, by the CA. SOS, due to the age requirements, when he ran for President. The SCOTUS agreed.

26 posted on 01/05/2009 5:42:23 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
Unless there are huge protests on the steps of the Supreme Court, 0bama will be sworn in.

I may get flamed for saying this, but if this is truly a constitutional crisis, as many profess belief it is, then they would be on the steps of the court in protest demanding the issue be properly vetted and heard.

27 posted on 01/05/2009 5:47:54 AM PST by EBH ( Directive 10-289)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

Here’s another interesting case working it’s way (possibly) to the SCOTUS. Chris Strunk has requested, by way of the FOIA, records on Obama from the US Dept. of State, and the US Dept. of Homeland Security. The case is at the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Both departments have IGNORED the FOIA requests by Strunk.

http://therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/amended_verified_complaint_and_petition_in_re_foia_usdc_.pdf


28 posted on 01/05/2009 5:49:28 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll
She would have lost the black voters and Obama voters.

Worse that that, she might have permanently ripped apart the fragile coalition of interests that is the Democrat Party.

If even a quarter of the blacks vote Republican, you get nationwide landslides for the Republicans. It's that close.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

29 posted on 01/05/2009 5:56:14 AM PST by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm

I don’t buy this about Hillary... she had to be forced to give up...if this info is true, she would have certainly pursued it. I still think that this is going nowhere.


30 posted on 01/05/2009 6:12:33 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

We’ll just have to consider him a “usurper” and go about our business of protecting our families until he’s ACORNED out - if that’s possible.


31 posted on 01/05/2009 6:39:02 AM PST by mcshot (Zero man! Fill out your own employment application for US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

Here’s what I think is a mostly complete list of cases:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

Berg has another case on behalf of a retired military Colonel that uses interpleader to shift the burden of proof onto Obama. http://www.obamacrimes.com

Pidgeons’ Broe vs Reed lawsuit has standing because of a unique statute in Washington state.


32 posted on 01/05/2009 6:44:52 AM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nominal

I have been looking at this via google. It seems to me the Supremes may have taken the case only to get rid of similar cases...if they were going to grant an injunction, they would have done so long before now. Also, why January 9th-after Congress opens the electoral votes? Another point, I read on Orley Taitz blog that the divorce decree does not indicate Obama was born in Kenya...but has some sort of ‘recollection by an un-named person. Never trust ‘Ed’. Wasn’t he involved in the Whitey tape? It seems to me that Berg is raking in the cash (donations) while pursuing this matter. I will look at your links now.


33 posted on 01/05/2009 7:12:30 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

“It would be hi-freakin-larious if after all this time, after all the manipulations and evasions by the Obamunist camp, that Barry Soetoro is disqualified from becoming President because he ran under a false name, and under false pretenses.”

The problem is, anyone can change their name simply by consistently using a different name, so long as this is not done for a fraudulent purpose: “The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one’s name at will, by common law, is clearly one’s constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change

Thus, the fact that Berg is raising this bogus claim raises doubts in my mind about whether his other legal claims are legitimately established or just populist talking points that sound good but lack validity.


34 posted on 01/05/2009 7:24:55 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

That date is one day after Congress deals with the electoral votes. If Congress does the right thing and disqualifies Obama, the cases might no longer have merit or be withdrawn. Standing, after the 8th, probably also changes, because only at that point does Obama become president-elect (unlike what he and the press have been implying).

I have my doubts about Ed’s reliability as well, but if he can somehow get some documentation from a port of entry, that would be interesting to see, whatever it shows. It’s not a big deal as of yet. I think they were talking about a FOIA request? I don’t think that will work. But that will probably drag out for a while, so we have to wait and see...

Berg is losing money and his law firm is suffering as a result of him being involved in this, so far as I can see. Maybe we should donate a few bucks.


35 posted on 01/05/2009 7:27:34 AM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Are you talking about the “open and notorious” name change stuff?

Also, “In California the usage method (changing it at will under common law) is sufficient to change one’s name. Although it is federal law to allow this, it is not followed in all states.”

I suppose which states’ statutes would Obama have had to follow, and would that apply to other states he’d moved to is what we need to find out.


36 posted on 01/05/2009 7:36:39 AM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Considering the extent that Barry Soetoro, or Barack Obama, or Barry Dunham, or whatever-the-Hell-his-name-is, has gone to in order to conceal the details of his birth, his schooling, his upbringing, etc., nobody can seriously suggest that he changed his name for innocent purposes.

As far as Berg is concerned, at least he’s trying to do something about this. Anyone can be a critic, but it takes somebody like Berg to actually step up to the plate, and he’s doing that.


37 posted on 01/05/2009 7:36:46 AM PST by mkjessup ("An empty limousine pulled up in front of the White House, and Barack Hussein Obama got out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

“nobody can seriously suggest that he changed his name for innocent purposes.

The issue is whether he did it for fraudulent purposes. He’s been using “Barack Obama” for decades and was in no way inhibited about using his other names in his 2 books. So while deliberately concealing his BC and other documents may NOW have a fraudulent purpose of serving as POTUS when he is constitutionally eligible, his filing as Barack Obama rather than Barry Soetero doesn’t constitute an illegal (i.e., fraudulent) act.

As for Berg, kudos to him. All I’m saying is that IMHO he erodes his credibility whenever he includes easily refuted bogus arguments among claims that might otherwise have much more solid legal grounding. In contrast—leaving aside what you might think of the merits of Donofrio’s legal claim, it was simple and consistent. He never gave the appearance of trying to throw everything he could at Obama and hoping something would stick. In my view, it really doesn’t help matters that Berg is a 9-11 conspiracy nut. That alone isn’t reason to dismiss him, but it creates a steeper hill for neutral observers to climb to overcome skepticism that Berg isn’t just doing this for notoriety/money etc. rather than a genuine belief in his legal claims. Again, Donofrio may be a bad comparison, but he always appeared to me to be more intellectually attached to his position than Berg ever has.


38 posted on 01/05/2009 8:19:58 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nominal

“I suppose which states’ statutes would Obama have had to follow, and would that apply to other states he’d moved to is what we need to find out.”

No, this is missing my point. States CAN have different procedures/rules for “official” name changes, but as a matter of constitutional right, anyone can change their name at will:

“The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one’s name at will, by common law, is clearly one’s constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change

But as a practical matter, one might be forced to resort to a formal name change “by the book” in instances that businesses or others refuse to recognize your new name:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/5/objectId/7C7FA175-7305-4E94-8D24DB5866EEE3CB/catId/211754E8-4167-4E64-9EABA23C9510DE4F/118/121/FAQ/

My interpretation is that in the above instance, one could technically FORCE a business to accept a name change on constitutional grounds, but pragmatically, it is far cheaper to simply follow the legal route.


39 posted on 01/05/2009 8:37:41 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DrC

yeah, maybe you’re right..

But whatever, the case isn’t about his name change and the legality of it. In the context of interpleader, the case is about a retired Colonel having to follow the orders of a CIC who is not eligible to be president. The interpleader is an attempt to get him to provide proof.

http://www.obamacrimes.info/Copy%20of%20ComplaintSoetoroInterpleader122708.pdf

I see a potential problem with something else in his case, but I’ve other things to look into at the moment. I’m sure a lawyer would have a better view on it, in a any event.


40 posted on 01/05/2009 8:49:06 AM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE; Calpernia

Have you seen this?


41 posted on 01/05/2009 1:37:35 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE; Calpernia

Make sure you read the article and comments...(very good)

Telling of a student who remarked....
“what make a natural born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-Section....”

ROFLMAO


42 posted on 01/05/2009 1:57:52 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mickie

Yes Mickie. Why else would Barry be reconstituting the Clinton White House and allowing Hillary the Secy. of State position where she can pursue her own foreign policy and world class protection rackets.

Blackmailing can be subtle as in payoffs, blocked plans, leaking of material, and investigations of fbi file and other information - and it can also be overt such as damaging information, threats to family, and to one’s life. The Clintons are expert at all of the above.


43 posted on 01/05/2009 2:23:44 PM PST by helpfulresearcher ( Bipartisanship is just a PC word for Collaborating with the Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Someone I am close to changed his name and in order to do so legally, at least in CA about 14 years ago, he had to fill out a specific corm, have it notarized, and use that form to change his name on every usage like driver’s license and every other legal document except passport (he had to wait 5 yrs for that), PLUS put a very specific announcement in a newspapr for IIRC four times. That was the easy method. THe other method involved a court and a lawyer.

It was called the useage method, and it did involve certain procedures.


44 posted on 01/05/2009 2:41:53 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nominal

Check my comment above about CA usage method name change. At least some yrs ago.


45 posted on 01/05/2009 2:54:46 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Orly Tavitz has, from what I have read, learned that 0bama did not list any additional names when he applied for his lawyer license (whatever the correct terminology is). That is a specific question when applying for such a license.


46 posted on 01/05/2009 3:15:09 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“0bama did not list any additional names when he applied for his lawyer license

Right, but again, my impression is that this is a bogus argument. Perhaps some legal eagle knows better, but I believe applicants merely are required to list other names under which they may have practiced law. The intent, I presume, is to ensure that the state has some means to perhaps prevent lawyers disbarred in one state from easily just moving to another state to practice law. Any lawyer who tries to circumvent this by lying faces the risk that any member of the public could later expose the deception, in which case the failure to list a previous name would itself presumably become grounds for disbarment.

In contrast, it serves no particular public purpose to have individuals whose names may have changed several times in childhood to due changes in parental marriage relationships etc. report a laundry list of such name changes, as they don’t impact on the lawyer’s fitness to become licensed in that state etc. I have seen the filled-out portion of Obama’s form several times, but no one has ever posted the detailed instructions for filling the form out. So the foregoing is speculative on my part. Perhaps someone who has experience with such forms can provide a more definitive account of whether Obama’s failure to provide these childhood name changes truly is a legal transgression.


47 posted on 01/05/2009 3:49:00 PM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DrC

What do you think about the actual case? The interpleader and the Colonel having standing, and having to follow the orders of a BOGUSPOTUS?


48 posted on 01/05/2009 4:31:44 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll
Berg talked about 3 different conclusions based on the time of the ruling - before President-Elect, during President-Elect, and as President. Can someone explain this further ? I can only find in the 20th Amendment where VP-Elect will 'act' as President, this can only happen after inauguration.

Also, could the SCOTUS review this matter and still keep the details secret and just give the public a ruling that BO is qualified ? Or will the evidence have to be made public ?
49 posted on 01/05/2009 5:53:53 PM PST by Visceral (The more I learn, the less I know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

::shakes head::


50 posted on 01/05/2009 7:20:57 PM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next 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