birth certificate story

[darrels joy]

Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court




The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.

Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."

In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president--with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick's decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
http://www.americasright.com/2008/10...ssed-from.html

[darrels joy]

Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis

Sign the Petition : 37,911 Letters and Emails Sent So Far

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. 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, Georgia, California, Florida, New York and Connecticut 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. Philip Berg's months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau 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. Mr. Berg has stated that if the Federal court chooses to dismiss he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. These allegations will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof to State and federal authorities. If he will not do so voluntarily he must be compelled by every means available. You, as an employee of The People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We The People are demanding you to make every effort, both public and private, to resolve this fundamental Constitutional question.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constit...tional-crisis/

[darrels joy]

I called the Federal Election Commision Friday, after getting their # off of this blog, and Asked if they could verify Barak Obama’s Eligibility, if they could verify Barak Obama’s Citizenship….I was told that I would have to ask my Senators or Congressmen the answer to those questions. I would have thought they would be interested in these answers as well, you know, to keep the election process fair. This link will send the right letters to the right place at the right time. we need to FLOOD their offices immediately! Please do this now and send the link to all of your friends who want to know these answers too.

Thank you!

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10...-this-nothing/

[darrels joy]

If I am reading this right, the Honorable Judge Surrick has ruled in Philip Berg's favor and declared Sen. Barack Obama ineligible to run for the office of President.

If this is true, stock up on popcorn as the fireworks are only starting.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...083/281573/27/

[covan]

Sorry to put the fire out under the popcorn but that is only Berg's motion that is posted. Lawyers typically submit the motions with an "Order" they hope the judge will grant.

If you go to Berg's own website www.obamacrimes.com you will see that Berg is going to appeal Judge Surrick's decision to the Supreme Court.

Although I would hope otherwise, this suit is dead in the water. I don not think the Supreme's will not even review the case and if they did (due to the makeup of the court) would rule against Berg.

[darrels joy]

Claim of citizenship for Obama dismissed by judge
By: Kieth Phucas, Staff Writer
10/28/2008



A lawsuit filed in federal court challenging Sen. Barack Obama's United States citizenship was dismissed Friday.

Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled the plaintiff, Lafayette Hill lawyer Philip J. Berg, lacked standing in the matter, and "as a result this court does not have jurisdiction in this case," the judge's legal analysis states.

Berg, who brought the suit in August, plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to his Web site, www.obamacrimes.com.

He was unable to be reached by phone for comment Monday.

Earlier this year, rumors began circulating about whether Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, as reported. In an effort to quell speculation, the senator's campaign posted a certificate of live birth on its Web site.

Berg's suit claims the Illinois senator was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible to run for president. The action claims also that even if Obama did have U.S. citizenship, he gave it up when his mother remarried and moved to Indonesia with her son.

Berg requested expedited discovery to inspect a "vault" version of the senator's birth certificate. The Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission are also named as defendants in the legal action.

On Aug. 21, four days before the Democratic National Convention, Berg filed suit seeking to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot. The Lafayette Hill attorney asked the court for a temporary restraining order "prohibiting Obama from being formally confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee for president," according to court papers.

A month later, a lawyer representing Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion in federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion called the allegations "ridiculous and patently false," and argues the court lacks legal standing to challenge a presidential candidate's qualifications.

While Berg argued the case against Obama on constitutional grounds, in the motion to dismiss, Obama's attorney said the plaintiff must demonstrate a "specific and individualized injury" to prove standing in the case rather than a hypothetical one.

In a posting on his Web site dated Oct. 25, Berg questioned the judge's decision.

"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution," he wrote. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

Earlier this year, a similar suit brought against Republican presidential candidate John McCain and the Republican National Committee claimed that McCain wasn't a "natural born" citizen, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was serving in the military.

That suit was dismissed in July on grounds the plaintiff lacked standing in the case.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=187834&rfi=6

[darrels joy]

Judge tosses lawsuit over Obama citizenship

By The Associated Press and Herald staff



pdf: Judge's order on Obama citizenship

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.

Marquis, a Fall City resident and an electrical engineer, questions Obama's U.S. citizenship and thus his eligibility for the presidency. He says Obama may have been a citizen of his father's native Kenya, or became a citizen of Indonesia when he lived there as a boy.

Marquis further contends that Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii does not prove he is a natural-born citizen because it doesn't show the name of the hospital, a doctor's name or a baby's footprint.

Obama's birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors, states he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961.

Obama was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father. After his parents divorced, Obama's mother married an Indonesian man.

To be eligible, presidential candidates are required to be "natural born" citizens and may not hold dual or multiple citizenship from foreign countries.

This was one of several legal challenges across the country regarding the 47-year-old Illinois politician's citizenship.

A similar lawsuit was thrown out of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on Friday.

About a dozen supporters of the lawsuit turned out in a Seattle courtroom Monday.

Marquis told the court he was there "to bring this motion representing millions of people who want to know the answer to those questions about Obama's birth certificate" and its validity.

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."

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/kennew...ry/364665.html

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by covan

Sorry to put the fire out under the popcorn but that is only Berg's motion that is posted. Lawyers typically submit the motions with an "Order" they hope the judge will grant.

If you go to Berg's own website www.obamacrimes.com you will see that Berg is going to appeal Judge Surrick's decision to the Supreme Court.

Although I would hope otherwise, this suit is dead in the water. I don not think the Supreme's will not even review the case and if they did (due to the makeup of the court) would rule against Berg.

She can't "debate" you on this issue.............she can only regurgitate "copy" crap from radical right-wing-web sites and media outlets.

Sad...............but TRUE!


Gimp

[darrels joy]

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.


The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.


"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.


Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.


WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.

Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.

The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.

In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.

"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

[darrels joy]

Obama stays on Ohio ballots, judge throws out local man's lawsuit

By Justin McClelland
Staff Writer

Friday, October 31, 2008

LEBANON — A Warren County magistrate this morning, Friday, Oct. 31, denied a Turtlecreek Twp. man's attempt to remove Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's name from the ballot in Ohio.

David Neal, 55, claimed in a lawsuit he filed in Warren County Common Pleas Court that Obama is not a U.S. citizen and cannot be elected president because he does not meet the constitutional requirement of being a native-born citizen. Neal claimed Obama was born in Kenya and cited a long-standing Internet rumor. An Obama spokesman on Thursday dismissed the accusation as "roundly and repeatedly debunked."

Neal asked for a court order removing Obama's name from ballots to be used in the general election on Tuesday, Nov. 4, arguing that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner had not confirmed Obama's citizenship status.

Magistrate M. Andrew Hasselbach listened to Neal on Thursday and said he would make his decision by noon on Friday.
"(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]'s complaint concerning "questions" about Senator Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate ... Given the paucity of evidence... this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama's qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. "

The Warren County resident's lawsuit was one of several filed throughout the country. An almost identical complaint, filed Aug. 21 in the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, was dismissed Friday, Oct. 24, the same day Neal filed his lawsuit in Lebanon. That case was appealed Thursday to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Neal said Thursday that he was not working with any group in particular but had been in contact with hundreds of people nationwide discussing the issue.

He could not be reached for comment this morning.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/con...svc=7&cxcat=16