1. Brett Bellmore - October 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm

   “Maybe it’s because Berg doesn’t have standing,”

   The standard dodge; If Obama wins, he becomes Berg’s President as much as anybody’s, and Berg ’suffers’ the wrong of being subject to rule by an unconstitutional President.

   But apparently in terms of standing, if everybody is wronged, nobody is allowed to complain. So the more widespread the violation, the harder it is to get a court to do anything about it.

   You’d think in a sane world if a wrong was to be committed against everybody, then everybody would have standing, rather than nobody.

2. Bruce Boyden - October 23, 2008 at 6:59 pm

   I take it neither Berg nor McCarty has done much civil procedure. Rule 12(a)(4) is a pretty memorable one for civil litigators, since it allows you to postpone a deadline.

3. Matt - October 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

   What I don’t understand about this whole silly affair is what the point is supposed to be. The dumb story is that Obama wasn’t born in the US but was actually born in Indonesia. But even if he was, he’d still be eligible to be president, I would think, because he’d be a citizen at birth via his US Citizen mother. Is the claim now supposed to be that his supposed mother wasn’t his mother or that she wasn’t a US citizen? In his case his being born outside the US would be neither hear nor there for citizenship purposes since the alleged loop-hole that some claim keeps McCain from being a “natural born citizen” was closed long before Obama was born. This seems pretty clearly the case under INA Section 301(g), unless the truly fantastic claims about his mother are made.

4. Matt - October 24, 2008 at 7:28 am

   It’s not clear from what I wrote but the loop-hole that allegedly keeps McCain from being a natural born citizen has nothing to do w/ Obama’s situation under any reading, as well. (It had to do w/ the obscurity of the status of the Canal zone.) But, the law clearly makes, and made, Obama a natural born citizen via his citizen mother regardless of where he was born so this whole charade is even more clearly nonsense. The only possible reason for it is to encourage the “OMG! HE’s A sEcret MUzlIM!!!1!1″ crowd. It really is beyond stupid.

5. Matt - October 24, 2008 at 8:24 am

   Usually the number of comments in one post by a single commenter is inversely proportional to what they add or the accuracy. Sadly that seems to be the case here. As was very kindly pointed out to me there is a way for Obama to not be a natural-born citizen despite his citizen mother if he was born outside the US (as insane people think.) That is, INA 301(g) was changed only after Obama was born to cover people 18 years old, as his mother was at the time. When he was born the citizen parent had to be 21. I’d be shocked if the rule wasn’t found to be retroactive if it went to court (on the grounds that any other rule would be extremely dumb) but that’s what the law was then. Thanks to a kind and knowledgeable correspondent for pointing this out.

6. Kathy - October 24, 2008 at 12:51 pm

   Rules are rules! What disturbs me the most about this whole thing is that Obama has been asked to hand over birth certificate, creditials concerning his education and health records and he has refused. It makes me think that he does have something to hide. That right there is more alarming than not being a natural citizen. The old saying is that “if someone will do it with you, he will do it to you”! (you fill in the it)

7. bill - October 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm

   that’s right Kathy. He isn’t giving up any medical info. Biden, McCain, & Palin all did.

   He won’t give up education records – some from over seas. And…..now he won’t give up “vault” birth certificate.

   He says he was born in Hawaii. Others say otherwise. And now he is going to Hawaii to visit his sick Grand Mother????

8. bill - October 24, 2008 at 3:32 pm

   I am the standard bill and not the one above.

   Note that the LA Times posted Obama’s birth certificate.

   http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

   The question is whether McCain has released his Panamanian birth certificate.

9. Andrew - October 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm

   As I understand it, Senator Obama has released what is known as a short-form birth certificate.

   However, he has not released what is known as a long-form birth certificate.

   I don’t why the latter has not been released, since it would apparently rebut many of the fringe theories that allege he’s not a “natural born citizen”.

10. Bob Dixon - October 24, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Hey Bill, Quoting from your link:

    “McCain was, in fact, born in a U.S. military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was serving in the Navy. That was, in fact, American-controlled territory at the time.

    More importantly, his parents were both American citizens, so he could have been born on Mars and still been an American at birth. And a sense of the Senate resolution took care of any lingering doubts.”

11. dennis - October 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    At some point, on this site, a lawyer, presumably with no axe to grind, gave us the groundrules for the tolling of time to provide a response to Berg’s demands. If, as expected, the Judge will rule in favor of the DNC and Obama, Berg’s demands will presumably need to be part of an appeal to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, or wherever he hopes to run with it.

    Most importantly, and I am not a lawyer, but have dealt with the process of charges, and proof, in a civil proceeding like this, where one party asserts that a document is not “true” (i.e. the birth document issued by the Hawai’i Dept of Health, and publically deemed to be valid by a representative), then the burden of proof in on the moving party, i.e. Berg as the plaintiff.

    All the other frivolities would not be relevant. If the document cannot be proved to be a false Hawai’i document, then it remains true, and Obama meets the standard of a natural-born person in the United States.

    Being realistic, his mother and father left the states shortly after he was born. If there were any additional documents provided at birth, the travels and travails of his mother, etc. in Kenya and Indonesia, and later return to the States certainly might have caused these documents to be lost.

    Somehow, Stanley and Barack were readmitted to the US, and apparently as US citizens. Makes sense, as both were born here in the States.

    Note elsewhere in some of these legal blogs that Berg has been previously censured by a Court for friviolous motions and legal malpractice.

12. Adrian - October 24, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    I’ve seen the short-form certificate on Obama’s website. Presumably short-form certificates can be made at any point in the future after the filing of the long-form certificate.

    I say this because I don’t recall ever seeing a government issued document created circa 1961 that was produced on a typewriter with an Arial-type, sans serif font.

    More of an investigative point rather than legal I’m sure, but the document I saw only in it’s electronic form could have been made at any time in the last 47 years. Based upon the graphical presentation, the last 15 years seems more accurate.

13. dennis - October 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    I have PA Certs of birth for myself and my wife issued in the 1990s whereas we were born in the mid-1940s.

    The font style certainly is as you state, and the form date is consistent with the much later issue.

    If I recall, this is also the case with Obama’s, and this seems to unduly lead folks to question it. If you or I or anybody asked for a Cert of Birth, we probably will get a machine rendition, and not a copy of the original. Is Obama’s original out there, and available to him? I don’t know, and I do wonder why just to clear the air, it has not been requested by Obama and provided. But that burden of proof would be on Berg.

    I suspect that even if a “100%” cert were provided, that the skeptics (to say it nicely) will still be getting into his family travels and residencies to attempt to discredit his standing as a natural born citizen.

14. Andrew - October 24, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Question for Dave Hoffman:

    Doesn’t FRCP 12(4) only apply to pleadings? Pleadings are separate from discovery requests, right? FRCP 12(4) describes the time periods to file a responsive pleading. Aren’t time period to respond to discovery requests a whole other ball of wax?

    For example, FRCP 36 covers requests for admissions, which are part of discovery. Are you sure that FRCP 12(4) affects the time period spelled out in FRCP 36?

15. Andrew - October 24, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    I think Andy McCarthy may have slightly misstated the matter. McCarthy wrote that Berg says Obama “failed to file a timely answer”. Actually, I think Berg says Obama failed to respond to a Request for Admissions under FRCP 36, which is not the same as failing to file a responsive pleading.

16. Andrew - October 24, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    I’ll take one more stab at this. I agree with Dave Hoffman that “Obama (and the FEC) have admitted nothing” but not for the reason given above in the post. The reason is not FRCP 12(4) but rather FRCP 36(3), which says: “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”

    Obama filed a Motion for Protective Order within 30 days, so the matter is not admitted. I don’t think FRCP 12(4) applies to discovery requests.

    Anyway, who can I bill for this legal research?

17. dave hoffman - October 24, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    Andrew,

    If that’s really what’s going on, McCartney more than slightly misstated the matter, he made a complete hash of it.

    On the discovery point, *if* the RFA were timely, then Obama’s motion for a protective order would toll it, for the reasons you give. But the parties in this case haven’t had a scheduling conference to discuss discovery under the applicable local rule (16.1(b)), which suggests that this RFA is untimely in any event. This is is why Berg has moved, four times (!), to expedite discovery. The Court hasn’t ruled on those motions (because it is writing its dismissal order, no doubt). Until it does, or the Court rules on the motion for a protective order, this is all much ado about nothing.

    And even if that weren’t so, there are very, very, very few judges that would deem failure to respond to an RFA at any point in a lawsuit a waiver of a defense, unless that parties’ failure to answer was willful or repetitive. (This is what the 16(e) discretionary hook is for.)

    I think we all recognize that this is a political stunt of a lawsuit, which seeks to advance a claim of dubious legal merit (and not just because of the standing issue). It is disappointing that McCarthy, a well-respected former assistant United States attorney, felt it worthwhile to publicize it so uncritically, and even worse that he’s yet to correct his original blog post.

18. Andrew - October 24, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Professor Hoffman:

    Thanks for the reply. I wouldn’t be too hard on McCarthy, for several reasons. First, FRCP 36 does use the word “answer” so McCarthy was probably entitled to use that word too in his NRO post; he just could have been a bit clearer about it. Second, many reputable sources have been covering this matter, including the Washington Times, Greta Van Sustern at her Fox News blog, and various other reputable media outlets, so I don’t see anything wrong with McCarthy mentioning the subject. Third, I do find Obama’s conduct here somewhat strange; John McCain has already released his long-form birth certificate, so Obama does not seem to have any reason for not releasing his own long-form birth certificate. I’m 99% sure it would resolve this whole matter.

19. CWC - October 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    I’m trying to follow all of this as best as I can. I have a question for anyone out there to answer. If the birth of Obama is found to not be a question, is the question of his citizenship in Indonesia by Berg a concern to anyone? If what Berg says is true and Obama does hold citizenship in another Country, is this actually a valid reason for Obama to be ineliglbly to run for or hold the office of President of the United States? Not knowing if any of what Berg aledges is true, the questions he raises are a concern to me. How do we find the truth about these questions?

20. Rightfully Concerned Citizen - October 24, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    As a concerned citizen, and we all should be, I do not find this issue to fall into the “An axe to grind” category.

    It most certainly does fall into the “I’m asking the people of the United States to honor me with the PRIVILEGE of being the next POTUS, so the least I can do, is to cooperate to the best of my abilities as a man with good intentions would be expected” category.

    The big question that lies unanswered, and in my opinion ignored, is the one of BHO having attended school, as a child, in Indonesia. Indonesia does not accept dual citizenship, and therefore BHO denounced his U.S. citizenship in order to obtain an education in the foreign country of Indonesia.

    At his point he would no longer be a citizen of the U.S., but a citizen of Indonesia. Furthermore, there was not an accusation of BHO being born in Indonesia. His grandmother, “the sick one”, the “typical white person”, said that BHO was, in fact, born in Kenya.

    If anyone believes that this issue is dumb, silly, beyond stupid, or simply insignificant, then it is because, like a child, you want what you want just because you want it, and you do not care if the means is illegal or unethical. If that is the case, you should not have become a lawyer in the first place, because the constitution of our country means nothing to you anyway. More than likely, you want to earn a living exploiting it rather than upholding it.

    If there is nothing to hide, and everything is legitamet and within compliance, bring forth the proof, and in turn, shutting peoples mouths. It is too easy, and in all reality, the general public deserves at least that much.

    BHO should do the right thing, and just produce the document. This is exactly the type of thing that comes to mind when people ask “Why don’t you trust him?”, “Why do you think he’s shady?”.

    COME ON PEOPLE! He wants to be the President of the United States! It may as well be me running for this position. I’ll trade-off 143 days of actual Senate time for twelve years in the U.S. Military, including combat, and still have more to offer this country than BHO! Mark my words; within a year of his inauguration, you will be sorry that you ever bought into this whole Obama/Biden ticket of substandard humans. Idiots I tell you, IDIOTS!

21. Andrew - October 25, 2008 at 12:45 am

    CWC, if the country of New Zealand decides unilaterally to give you citizenship, that does not make you any less a U.S. citizen. Same thing if the country of Indonesia decides to give you citizenship.

    If a person was born in the USA, and resides in the USA now, then that person is entitled to US citizenship and is a natural born U.S. citizen. The 14th Amendment says so: “All persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It doesn’t matter if you lived in Indonesia for awhile.

    The only issue with Obama is whether he was born in the USA, and it’s a 99% sure thing that he was. But it’s strange that he won’t produce his original (long-form) birth certificate to prove it.

22. Wayne - October 25, 2008 at 7:21 am

    As a genealogist, I am concerned.

    A certification of birth is not the same thing as an original certificate of birth. What is on the original certificate of birth is different than what can subsequently issued. For example, my wife’s father changed his name during WWII time, and her original birth certificate showed this change of name on her original birth certificate. Several years later trying to get her social security/medicare

    we requested a copy of the birth certificate. What we really got a revised certificate of birth, a certification of birth, that did

    not show her father had changed his name.

    Consequenly a review of a original birth certificate is needed to verify that a citzen is really a natural born citzen. For example, the original birth certificate could indicate that the person’s birth was merely being registered and not actually having show that, that person was born in the state or territory.

23. dave hoffman - October 25, 2008 at 9:45 am

    Andrew,

    Focusing on the procedure, for just a second, I think you are letting McCarthy off too easily. Look at his post – he wrote “Obama’s lawyers moved to dismiss the suit and failed to file a timely answer, meaning that, under the applicable rules . . . Obama is legally deemed to have admitted Berg’s allegations that he is constitutionally ineligible to be president. . . .” That clearly doesn’t refer to a discovery RFA, but rather the allegations in the complaint. If McCarthy knew a lick about civil practice, he’d have to know this is wrong. I’ve emailed him about it, but he hasn’t made a correction.

    In terms of the coverage, I have no problem with covering the lawsuit, but I think that journalists ought to mention, pretty quickly, that (1) standing rules prohibit recovery; and therefore (2) there is no chance this will be adjudicated. To suggest that Obama does wrong by not contesting the merits on a motion to dismiss distorts how litigation is supposed to work.

    On the birth certificate merits itself, I’ll let the commentators duke it out. I’ll just say that views of the facts, and their relevance, seems overdetermined by individuals’ priors.

24. Bill - October 25, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    As a US Citizen (one of the highest honors in this world) I call for our champions of the legal system to step forward and demand in one voice that proof of citizenship for all four candidates be provided for verification. Failing that, doubts and distractions will follow every action of the executive branch for the next four years. Lawsuit after lawsuit will be filed. Restore the faith of the American Legal system to We, the People. Stand up!

25. Ted - October 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!

26. Ted - October 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!

27. john - October 25, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Put aside Obama’s and McCain’s circumstances. I want to ask a standing question:

    Assume that Arnold Schwartzenegger were elected President. He is not a natural born citizen.

    Who would have standing to challenge his qualifications to be President?

28. cynthia - October 25, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    It is my understanding, based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940 and its subsequent amendment in 1952, that the citizenship follows that of the mother. Since she married an Indonesian man and moved BHO to Indonesia where he was required to be a naturalized citizen to attend their schools, he and his mother took on Indonesian citizenship. Neither of them apparently swore an oath of allegiance on coming back into the United States which would preclude them from being considered natural born citizens of the US. This is the whole crux of the issue with regards to Obama. Since he at the age of 20 traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, he was acknowledging his Indonesian citizenship. He refuses to produce a copy of the oath of allegiance which would have made him a US citizen again, although, if I understand the INA 1940 and 1952 amendment correctly, a naturalized vs natural born citizen. He would have regained his citizenship had he taken the oath between the ages of 18 and 23 years, provided he could show his residency on American soil (su solis) for a minimum of 5 years which was the requirement at the time. Apparently, he and his mother re-entered the US when BHO was about 10 years old. In the meantime, he was an Indonesian citizen which did NOT recognize dual citizenship with the US until just a year ago. This is the whole issue. And, if we as Americans cannot stand up and claim foul play when we see a problem with regards to who is elected president of this country when they refuse to provide the necessary documentation, how can we as a country ensure that someone who does not have this country’s best interests in mind? I’m NOT an attorney, but have been researching this issue for several days now. I understand where Berg’s mindset is on this issue and, while we all anticipated that the matter might be dismissed for “lack of standing”, claiming that Berg and all Americans who feel disenfranchised by the DNC (a private concern, no less) have the ability to choose from among the many other candidates and so are not truly “injured” by this, the fact remains that All Americans, regardless of party affiliation are affected by what is essentially a federal court’s decision that we have no authority to sue the government or any private election party to question what they’re doing. We are supposed to be a nation of laws created by, of and for the people. The people want an answer – it does not matter his political leanings. We want an answer.

29. cynthia - October 25, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    It is my understanding, based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940 and its subsequent amendment in 1952, that the citizenship follows that of the mother. Since she married an Indonesian man and moved BHO to Indonesia where he was required to be a naturalized citizen to attend their schools, he and his mother took on Indonesian citizenship. Neither of them apparently swore an oath of allegiance on coming back into the United States which would preclude them from being considered natural born citizens of the US. This is the whole crux of the issue with regards to Obama. Since he at the age of 20 traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, he was acknowledging his Indonesian citizenship. He refuses to produce a copy of the oath of allegiance which would have made him a US citizen again, although, if I understand the INA 1940 and 1952 amendment correctly, a naturalized vs natural born citizen. He would have regained his citizenship had he taken the oath between the ages of 18 and 23 years, provided he could show his residency on American soil (su solis) for a minimum of 5 years which was the requirement at the time. Apparently, he and his mother re-entered the US when BHO was about 10 years old. In the meantime, he was an Indonesian citizen which did NOT recognize dual citizenship with the US until just a year ago. This is the whole issue. And, if we as Americans cannot stand up and claim foul play when we see a problem with regards to who is elected president of this country when they refuse to provide the necessary documentation, how can we as a country ensure that someone who does not have this country’s best interests in mind? I’m NOT an attorney, but have been researching this issue for several days now. I understand where Berg’s mindset is on this issue and, while we all anticipated that the matter might be dismissed for “lack of standing”, claiming that Berg and all Americans who feel disenfranchised by the DNC (a private concern, no less) have the ability to choose from among the many other candidates and so are not truly “injured” by this, the fact remains that All Americans, regardless of party affiliation are affected by what is essentially a federal court’s decision that we have no authority to sue the government or any private election party to question what they’re doing. We are supposed to be a nation of laws created by, of and for the people. The people want an answer – it does not matter his political leanings. We want an answer.

30. anil sanghvi - November 5, 2008 at 3:19 am

    mr obama is very brillent person and its help

    us people and worlds countery. he become a best

    president of us.

    THE GREAT END OF LIFE IS NOT KNOWLEDGE BUT

    ACTION.

    REGARDS

    ANIL SANGHVI

    INDIA

31. Danney - November 7, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Regardless of the posting if there is a true certificate of birth and you want to simply get a case dismissed and make the plaintiff look like a fool then you walk it over and submit it to the court. Now there is a huge questions to why that was not done? Is he hiding something? Why such a mysterious past? Why did enough voters now elect this man if truth is not transparent? Where in the world does a politician get $600plus million and hide where it come from? So many questions I really think America has made a big mistake. My hopes that the truth will be found if he is cleared congratulations but if not a great wrong has been done to our country and We The People will suffer from this. Can anyone tell me truly who has standing? As Berg said if I don’t have standing if you don’t have standing then who does? Do we not have the right now to redress our grievances as We The People? If we have question to the constitutionality of a leader elect and that question remains then I do interpret the constitution to say we should have no alliances. With all these shady doubts can we really believe this man is or is not a tyrant?

32. Eigernorthface - November 8, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Berg requests a Writ of Certiorari. Justice Souter was on duty when the complaint came in. He denied the motion to stay the election and scheduled a hearing on the application fot the Writ of Certiorari for 1 Dec 2008. Berg has other things he wanted besides staying the election.

    So on 1 Dec 08 Berg will appear and say why the Writ should be granted, and the Obama lawyers will appear and say why the Writ should not be granted. Both sides will file briefs.

    The transcript of the hearing and all the briefs will be circulated to all the Justices. Some time later they will vote on whether the Writ of Certiorari will be granted. If four of them say yes, then Berg v Obama will be docketed as a case before the Supreme Court.

    If the case is docketed Berg will have a chance to argue that the District Court should not have dismissed his case on the standing issue. If the Supreme Court disagrees, that’s the end of the legal case.

    If the Supreme Court agrees with Berg they can do two things (1) remand to the District Court for further proceedings or (2) take the whole case up to the Supreme Court by pendant jurisdiction.

    If Berg got that far — possibly by someone else joining the case to enhance Berg’s standing, pendant jurisdiction would probably be involked because of the scope and time issues of the case.

    Who could join Berg to allay the standing issue? One of the other candidates — clearly they have a case — if Obama is not qualified to run. Also any of the electors would have standing. Some electors from certain states have already heard of the case and are talking about it. They have a direct legal obligation to be sure the person they vote for in the Electoral College is qualified.

    {Editorial Note: In a nation of 300 million people it is truly amazing — almost Twilight Zone like that only a few dozen people seem to care at all about this case. It gets zero coverage in the mainstream media — no radio, no TV no newspapers. We appear to be living in the era of “Don’t Know Don’t Care”. 53% said they did not care whom Obama was associated with prior to his candidacy. Several people have loudly stated that they don’t care if he comes from the moon as long as he can bring some change. 20 generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve the U.S. Constitution. The people on the U.S. Supreme Court do care. They will do what’s right, even if no one is watching.)

33. Eigernorthface - November 8, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    In the event that the Supreme Court grants the cert petition, and decides to take the whole Berg case up on pendant jurisdiction for a trial on the facts there would be three key issues for evidence to be found.

    1. The airline that flew from Kenya to Hawaii has a passenger manifest, which even in 1961, would be legally bound to specify the number of souls aboard the plane. If the baby that is now called Barack Obama was on that plane, there would be a listing for it on the manifest. This would be strong evidence that the baby was not born in Hawaii.

    2. A question arises as to whether there is any non-forged documentary evidence indicating Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The certificate of live birth might fit the bill, if it’s a non-forged document. On the other hand it could well be a non-forged official document that is in fact not accurate. Hawaii in 1961 was a sort of semi-organized place. The mother was a person who had the resources to cause an official document to be created even if the information recited thereon was not true. So, document specialists would have to tell the Court if the COLB is genuine, and other investigators would have to find out if “facts” presented thereon are true. A long-form vault birth certificate would be very helpful in answering these questions. Mr. Obama either cannot or will not present such a document, but if same exists it may be in the hands of authorities in Hawaii, and the Supreme Court presumably could obtain it.

    3. It has been alleged that Barack Obama was taken to Indonesia prior to the age of 18 by his mother who then became an Indonesian citizen. But one cannot lose one’s U.S. citizenship involutarily, and a 16 year old in the care custody and control of a parent has no voluntary capacity. However, it has also been alleged that at the age of 20 — 2 years after attaining adult status, Barack Obama travelled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. If this is true, it would constitute an act inconsistent with his reclaiming his American citizenship at the age of 18, which he arguably may have had a right to do, if he was really born in Hawaii and not in Kenya.

    (Editorial note: It may be hard for us lawyers to accept that this case is not all about the law — it’s actually all about the facts. The Supreme Court can sort the facts out fairly quickly if it doesn’t get into the process of taking testimony from unreliable foreign witnesses. Certainly there is no law of any other country that makes any difference here. Whether Barack Obama is or is not qualified to take the oath of office for the Presidency of the USA is entirely a matter of US law, as it may incorporate the laws of the State of Hawaii as they existed in 1961. The case really turns on the facts as they emerge from documentary evidence interpreted by qualified document examiners. We do have such people at CIA and FBI and NSA and NRO. The Court would have access to their services as needed. Getting to the bottom of this case actually is relevant, kind of important. The Founders were very specific on this point and for good reasons. We don’t even think in those kinds of terms today. They knew why the President had to be a natural born American. Obama may have the right stuff to be sworn in — but one way or another — we need to know — this is not something that we can just skate by on — sort of a “Don’t know; Don’t Care” kind of thing. This is not political for me — I’ve been a member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since 1985. The Constitution should be upheld, and it will be — the Justices are not asleep.

34. Danney - November 9, 2008 at 8:23 am

    As I am studying this as a student of law apparently there is an on going investigation with some of the EC as to the constitutionality of Obama. I do know that Ron Paul and the We The People foundation are now spreading the word and are asking donations to run an add with USA today an open letter of demand for prof addressed to Obama. They also have informed and preparing suit involving the EC to restrain there vote in key states. The foundation has stated that they are preparing in the case SCOTUS denial of writ of cert as I read the dismissal memorandum and order this may happen unless Berg corrected some issues.

    According to the ruling by Judge Surrick “Defendants were not represented 1 at the hearing. Plaintiff advised the Court that he had

    faxed a copy of the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as well as notice of

    the hearing to Defendants, but that he could not confirm that they had been received by

    Defendants. (Hr’g. Exs. P-1, P-2, & P-9.)

    2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend its pleading

    once as a matter of course . . . before being served with a responsive pleading.” A motion to

    dismiss is not a responsive pleading. The motion seeking leave to amend was unnecessary. The

    Amended Complaint is deemed filed.”

    This leads to weigh in Judge Surrick’s decision to dismiss. But then he also sited Rule 12(b)(1) Lack of Jurisdiction and the explained reason for having no standing was because failure to demonstrate damages excluding primary candidates and he included them who vote or may vote.

    Thank you Eigernorthface for your help.

35. Eigernorthface - November 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Dear Danney,

    It’s good to hear that Ron Paul and his people are taking an active role.

    From what you tell me, it sounds like there may have been an issue of service of the complaint in Judge Surrick’s court. When I was practicing in that same court we always had to file the complaint and then show by clear signature proof that the complaint had been served on the defendants. It doesn’t sound right to me that Berg would just file his complaint and then FAX it off to someone. What’s next just text messaging? Why bother to file at all — why not just text message the Clerk of Court, with copy to defendant?

    Defective service is a valid basis for dismissal without predjudice in my opinion, especially if the case would involve a major forfeiture of possible rights or privileges, and the defendants do not appear. The law abhors a forfeiture.

    The case was providently dismissed by Judge Surrick simply because he does not have the resources to process such a case. It’s like calling in the cavalry — you dismiss the case on some sort of technicality — it buys time — it allows a court with fuller and better resources take the matter up, and in the meantime it doesn’t impact the case in any way.

    The bottom line from Surrick’s decision is “Look Berg if you can’t find anybody with a more direct stake in this matter than you have merely by being a registered voter to join you in this case, then this might well be the sort of frivolous vexacious litigation that the “cases and controversies” limitation on jurisdiction is designed to prevent.”

    As I say Surrick’s decision is provident — I’m assuming that out of 300 milliion people somebody, maybe Ron Paul, might be found who will step forward and say — “Maybe Berg doesn’t have standing but I do — I was one of the other candidates in the same race! If I’m not directly harmed by a possible fraud on the whole country and its Constitution placing an inelligible person in the Oval Office — who would be?”

    If Surrick can’t or won’t answer that, he should be impeached — he’s not fit to be a Federal Judge.

    Any of the electors would also clearly have standing. So what are the 500+ electors — and each of them is legally duty bound to take all necessary steps to assure that the person they cast their vote for is elligible — no matter what the DNC, FBI, CIA or anybody else may have failed to do. So is every single elector living in the world of “Don’t Know, Don’t Care”?

    Right now that’s how it looks. Berg stands alone, like the Sheriff in High Noon — with all the “respectable townspeople” hiding behind their couches, hoping nothing bad happens to them.

    Do Americans deserve to live under their own Constitution? Have we all gone slack? Is this the Brave New Unworthy World?

    Let’s have Ron Paul come forward and join the case. One man with a spine goes out to join the Sheriff at high noon and says “I don’t know how this is going to come out — but we need to get to the bottom of this — not just skate by it!”

    Hope this helps you, Ron Paul, my fellow Americans, and the Constitution.

36. Danney - November 9, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Thank you again for your explanation it is expertly presented. As I stated I am in the process of study and this was handed to me a case study as I was very vocal of my discontent for both candidates but more so against Obama as clearly being a so called “constitutional scholar” references he has made regarding the constitution has clearly been wrong. It seems the constitution gets in his way of ideology more so then McCain.

    I took issue with the McCain/Feingold act 2 years ago as a project explaining the unconstitutional clauses in this act related to the guarantee of free speech. I got a high score on my project. This act was proven also worthless as Obama did exploit the holes in campaign finance reform by donation of $200 or less the sources need not be explained also as use of prepaid visa/MasterCard leave none or limited resources to investigate violations. Donation with the use of them to the campaign of Obama only as McCain refused to except. Any foreign government or donation from foreign sources gives freedom to exploit. This most likely is the case. I truly fear the Election of Obama as he has plainly shown circumvention of laws and leads me to believe he is not constitutionally qualified. I shake to say buying into one that shows no respect for the law or twists it in favor has grave consequences without weighing his history of this.

    We seem to be 2 voices but there are many. We The People Foundation is a groundswell. I do not buy into some of the conspiracy theories presented by this foundation but I understand it is not an arm of a political party but that of many and many ideas will be voiced. The focus though is restoration of the constitution and the demand of We The People have the right to redress our grievances and protect our constitution as the law of the land. They expose blatant violations in tax law as withholding taxes makes the power of the people inept. The only recourse we have is mass demonstration and legalese. Being the judicial system has been set up to protect the interests of governing bodies legal means has been weakened. We do have some on our side I am very impressed with decisions from Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia and sometimes Kennedy. Ginsberg is by my definition a political hack siding always with liberal causes along with Souter and Bryer. Stevens has been inconsistent at best as O Connor before her retirement.

37. Eigernorthface - November 10, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    To Danney on 10 Nov 08

    Danney a groundswell is not needed. Lots of chatter won’t help. Many talking heads add nothing.

    The only thing that will make a difference right now is for one person who clearly does have standing to join Berg as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

    Bob Barr might do it. Ralph Nader might do it. Ron Paul could do it, but he would have to put aside distractions like organizing groundswells and taking ads in the paper and focus his consciousness on filing the appropriate papers with the U.S District Court for the Eastern Distric of Pennsylvania to add himself as an additional plaintiff in the Berg v Obama lawsuit.

    Intellectual exercises are very excellent things, but in this particular matter there’s absolutely no substitute for actual deeds — doing things, not just thinking, analysing, or opining.

    Hillary and McCain have big big political careers to worry about, so I don’t think they will join Berg. But one of the lesser candidates could, and would be just as good for purposes of overcoming the standing problem.

    Any of the electors would be just as good. If I were taking an ad in the paper, I would list all 500 + electors by name, explain the independent responsibility they bear for casting their vote only for lawful and eligible candidates, and then implore at least one of them to stand up like a real person and join in the Berg v Obama case.

    There’s a limited number of people that can help solve the standing problem — I can’t, you can’t, it has to be someone who is specifically and most directly harmed if Obama is ineligible. Those who ran against him and those who must vote in the Electoral College would be directly harmed by a failure of the American judiciary to address and resolve any issues about Obama’s eligibility that are backed by credible evidence offerred in good faith.

    Berg, I think, has some of that in his pleadings. He is offerring to prove that Obama is invalid as a candidate for the Presidency. Among the few hundred people who could make a difference here, one of them has to step forward, and say “Yes, I care about this matter, I want to see it proved one way or the other, just like Berg does”.

    So far, all we have is the sound of “zzzzzzzzzzz” by 99.9999% of the citizens, and idle chatter by the other .0001%.

    This means that even if cert is granted, Berg with have to deal with the standing issue in the Supreme Court, and prevail on that issue, before his case in chief can be considered on its merits. Berg won’t get to talk about Obama’s trip to Pakistan at age 20 on an Indonesian passport unless 4 out of nine of the supremes grant cert and then 5 out of 9 say that Berg all by his lonesome has enough standing to bring the case.

    This is not just a technicality. The more likely the Supreme Court is to be challenged in a Constitutional showdown, the more carefully it must create and document its jurisdiction to hear the case. The scardey cats who won’t join Berg are making the situation far more complex than it needs to be and creating a huge and expensive hurdle for a sole practitioner lawyer to overcome with no institutional funding. The standing issue can’t be removed summarily because it is not a mere technicality. The way to remove it is by one person with a spine — maybe Rob Paul — doing the only action that will make a difference — it’s a matter of filing not talking.

38. Danney - November 10, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Eigernorthface thank you once again. You bring to me experience and tutelage better then I am receiving in my study at times. I have to weigh consistently viewpoints of them who have an agenda put forth over the teaching of facts and experience. This sadly to say is often the case in higher education institutes as well as public school. Fortunately my parents put me though a private school.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira is one of my greatest sources as in evaluation of his writings seems he bucks the trend. I have 2 of his books Constitutional Homeland Security and Pieces of Eight both very informative. I shall not bother with the details but I do encourage you to read these as I can do little justice to his explanation of steps to legally take action.

    I was disappointed with Ron Paul’s congratulatory senate speech but then again he has a political future and I don’t know if it was out of the necessity to not rock the apple cart. I do know he is pursuing adjudication involving the EC hopefully he will continue and be effective as well. The movement lead by him at least is getting some publicity I do hope he post the add. This has been lacking as you and I know the media has ignored any negativity involving Obama Fox news has had some but surely presented the other side softball question.

    Do you believe the writ of cert will be denied? I do believe Ron Paul is in discussion with Berg or he would not be taking this add out involving the case. So maybe there is light between the clouds.

39. Danney - November 10, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    Quoting Dr. Edwin Vieira PHD and constitutional scholar’s stance on this issue.

    “In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.”

40. Danney - November 10, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    The source

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

41. Eigernorthface - November 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    To Danney and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Ph.D 11 Nov 08

    First, I’m honored to receive such a thoughtful and correct analysis from Dr. Vieira on the issue of what it would mean to permit a judicial inquiry to proceed into the question of Obama’s eligibility. This is a place for concurring opinions, and my opinion concurs 100% with what Dr. Vieira has so eloquently said. Why couldn’t Ron Paul say it? Is all his bravado just posture, hot air, no spine? In a rightly organized election, one of the other candidates or one of the electors would come forward. These are people who supposedly care about the election. Leaving poor Berg out there all by himself is not right if I could come to his side by joining him as a plaintiff, I would do it. I’ve been where he is. I represented the nuclear veterans from the atomic test site and the people in the 4 county area around Three Mile Island. Being a lonely attorney out there trying to get the right thing done, is not so much fun — it’s a grim twilight struggle against evil, while the whole town peeps out their windows to see how the fight will come out — just as in the classic western “High Noon”. Right now it appears that our country is so morally bankrupt that it simply does not matter to any of the other election participants what the facts are about Obama’s eligibility. Their comfort zone does not include doing what their duty requires — it’s just too hard. It’s a good thing the veterans didn’t behave that way, over the last 200 years, or there wouldn’t have been an election at all.

    Now to Danney’s question: Yes — I do think that Cert. will be granted. I think that Scalia will make a strong argument that this is a matter the Court is duty bound to get to the bottom of one way or the other. I think Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will concur. That’s four votes — that’s all you need to grant Cert.

    After Cert is granted dear old Berg will still have to prove that he has standing — that the District Court Judge Surrick was wrong. I think he may not have standing — although I surely recognize the irony and paradox of such a view. Standing requires a special and direct injury above and beyond what all citizens get from a fraudulent election. Surrick’s idea that if Berg can’t find anybody to join him to overcome the standing issue then maybe more harm than good would come out of this case if it was ever heard on the merits. I’m not sure that I disagree. I’m appauled that none of the duty bound people have come forward to join Berg — no candidate — no elector — nobody from the Justice Department — no Speaker of the House — no Senator — nobody.

    We get what we rate as a nation. If Berg is the only man is America that wants a non-fraudulent election to be assured by a proper inquiry, then what we rate as a nation is kind of a “Don’t Know — Don’t Care” election. People here in Maryland have told me that they don’t care if Obama comes from the moon as long as he can bring change.

    Letting the issue of eligibility slide by would set a terrible precedent — one that we could not live with — Scalia will, come to this view, in my humble opinion, the other conservative Justices will join him — and justice Kennedy might even join him — and possibly others.

    It would not surprize me if the decision to grant Cert was by a unamimous Court. If the Court takes up a matter that is beyond its Constitutional jurisdiction — cause it’s not a real case or controversy — under the precedents that exist in our laws — the Constitutional crisis would be 100 times bigger than if someone with really clear standing were joined as a co-plaintiff in the case — let’s say Hillary, or McCain, or even Palin. Once the standing hurdle is overcome, if it is, the Supreme Court would almost surely hear the whole case on its facts and make a final dispositiion of the issue of Obama’s eligibility.

    But if we can’t find among us anyone with standing plus guts, then we should just get what we rate — that would be one of the less fortunate but fully Constitutional possible outcomes.

    The Founders thought the natural born citizen criterion was important because they thought the opposite possibility would create temptations for a military coup. The Army might decide they don’t want to die at the orders of a National Command Authority who is not even a natural born citizen of USA. Maybe the Founders were wrong about this. Of course they were smarter than we are about political matters — they might have been the most far-seeing and provident group of political thinkers who ever lived — that’s why we keep their document at the Archives and their ideas in our hearts — especially today Veterans’ Day.

    The case will go as it goes — we will get what we rate.

42. Danney - November 12, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Eigernorthface,

    I had a very good chat with my friend and judge advocate Major USAF on the phone asking him to email today answers to allegiance of the military in case Obama was ro take the oath of office and found to be a usurper later. His reply was such.

    “Dannyboy great to hear from you and I am very pleased that you are taking up law as I suggested please do tell me when your going to take the dreaded bar Marianne and I will pray for you.

    We took an oath when we joined military service. The oath we took.

    “I, {name}, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    In answering the question. The first and most important defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. If Obama is found to be a usurper this is an anomaly to the constitution and he is not considered president but considered a domestic enemy under the UCMJ and the responsibility of the military to remove him either peacefully or by force. This is contingent to orders from higher command as we can not question their authority but if they do follow their oath most likely this will be the case.

    I did read the decision by that judge and am not surprised. This standing business is not in the constitution. This is an invention of the judicial system to find refuge from cases they are either politically afraid of or mind boggled to decide. I can quote you case examples of those being non citizens filing suits and winning because they where bound by the law when entering the country on visa considered standing on civil matters. Reportedly some illegal aliens as well in a Texas case but I have no example yet. Most of these where simple cases of dog bites, assaults breach of contract so forth. Berg is a tax paying, voting, public serving citizen with a hell of a beef. The party with the name only “Democrat” nominated a could be unconstitutional candidate. This I believe was because of his color, and over a most likely more qualified candidate he avidly supported. Then overlooking the vetting process a responsibility to members derelict. Then nominating him with “super delegates” thus disenfranchising the popular primary vote. Berg has no standing? Ridicules. I could be a Mexican that crosses the Rio Grande, get beat up by some citizen boarder vigilantly without political clout, file suit if I had the balls, the court would reward me damages and send me back to feed my family in Mexico. Sounds like political fear to me. He shoved it aside to cover himself figuring an appeal may happen and correction by a higher court.

    Hope this answers your question well pal. Please do give our regards to Sheila. Happy Veterans Day

    Jimbo”

43. Eigernorthface - November 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

    First on the subject of “standing” being in the Constitution — it most certainly is. It is the fundamental limitation on the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. For jurisdiction to exist, there must be a case or controversy. A case or controversy means that the plaintiff must have some special direct injury. Otherwise, what is being brought to the Court is merely a vexacious form of intermeddling — essentially a request for an advisory opinion about a hypothetical and speculative matter. The Court does not have jurisdiction to issue opinions on such matters — the Constitution does not permit that. So, the Obama matter being a possible source of a major Constitutional crisis, it is supremely important that the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to accept the case in the first place be established with 100% firmness and merit. It’s not a question of the size of the beef — it’s a question of whether the plaintiff is specially and directly harmed by the beef. Berg is directly harmed, one may suppose, but is he specially harmed? Is he harmed in a way that all the other citizens are not harmed? If not, his litigation may not amount to a case. It’s more like a protest, supposedly on behalf of a lot of people, but that’s just a speculation, an hypothesis. U.S. District Courts are not authorized to deal in such matters. Maybe they should be — but they are not. It’s not a question of how American Berg is compared to some illegal migrant from Mexico. Berg would not have to be a natural born American to bring the suit if he had standing, which I don’t think he does. Our national disgrace is that hundreds of people who clearly have standing are so hypocritical and cowardly that not a single one will join Berg to perfect the standing issue and allow his case in chief to go forward on the merits. These are people who pretended to care about the USA, the election, the Constitution — but when duty called — they were not there. No minutemen these days, just fakey politicians hiding behind their couches, hoping that the sheriff (Berg) either gets the bad guys or gets killed, but what the heck it doesn’t really matter, as long as their own political careers are safeguarded. I would call that dishonorable cowardice — since it represents a breach of duty on a monumental scale.

    If and when the standing issue is favorably resolved, so a fully authenticated case or controversy exists — maybe Hillary joins Berg, or one of the electors, or Sarah Palin, or Ron Paul, or Bob Berg, or Ralph Nader — then the whole case can be resolved with four data points — it’s really quite simple.

    1. Obama either did or did not travel to Pakistan in or about 1981 when he was 20 years old.

    2. If so, he either did or did not travel on an Indonesian passport.

    3. If so, he either did or did not reclaim his U.S. citizenship at some time after his trip to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

    4. If he did reclaim his U.S. citizenship (having been involuntarily removed to Indonesia as a minor), there either is or is not some documentary evidence of that occurance — a piece of paper showing that he applied to reclaim his US citizenship — a piece of paper showing his claim was granted.

    Four little data points. And here are the people who could do the investigation. The State Department, the CIA, FBI, NSA, NRO, the Justice Department, the GAO, NCIS, and the Supreme Court itself.

    Put that kind of manpower on these four tiny data points, and some sort of data would probably emerge to fill in some of the blanks.

    But of course there is effort involved. Nothing gets done without effort. In a slackey slackey Washington DC there is very little effort on anything. You may think that whether the President elect is elligible to take the oath is “important” enough to justify some minimal level of effort — but that’s just wishful thinking — there is no evidence of it.

    53% of the American people (according to a NY Times poll) said they did not care whom Obama was associated with prior to the election. Many people have since said that they don’t give a hoot if Obama is from the moon as long as he can bring change. In a “don’t know – don’t care” society, mustering the effort to get off one’s duff and fill in the four data points, could turn out to be “just too hard” for us. Good thing that the vets who took Mount Suribachi didn’t feel that way — but those were other times — times when gallant men walked the earth.

44. Eigernorthface - November 13, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Here’s a letter that went out today. All that’s needed is 49 other people in 49 other states to send similar letters. Text follows:

    Hon. Condoleezza Rice

    Secretary of State

    U.S. Department of State 13 November 2008

    2201 C Street, NW

    Washington, DC 20520

    Dear Secretary Rice,

    I respectfully request that you do not certify the votes of the electors from Maryland in the Electoral College unless and until you are satisfied that Barack Obama is a lawful and eligible candidate to be President of the United States.

    You may wish to obtain answers to following four questions:

    1. Did Barack Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?

    2. If so, did he use an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan?

    3. If Obama entered Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at age 20, did he subsequently take the oath of allegiance to regain his U.S. citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or the Attorney General, or the Judge or Clerk of a U.S. Court?

    4. If Obama did reclaim his U.S. citizenship after his visit to Pakistan in 1981, are there records of that fact at any embassy, legation, consulate, or Court, or in the Offices of the Attorney General to verify that occurrence?

    I am a citizen of the United States, a voter in the state of Maryland, a member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court and a retired Navy JAG. I would be directly harmed if the Presidential election was inconsistent with Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and I seek redress of this grievance under Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. There is no special harm to me separate from or beyond the injury to any other American voter by having a corrupted and fraudulent nomination, election, and inauguration process. I do not have any special direct personal and injury such as might give me standing to pursue these questions in a Federal Court. I only have my faith and reliance on you, as a honest person, who wants to do her duty as the official that certifies the results of the Electoral College process. I’m not asking that all the electors be disqualified if the above questions can’t be answered, just the ones from my own state of Maryland.

    Very Sincerely,

45. Danney - November 13, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    Thanks again Eigernorthface my friend Maj. James “Jimbo” Kelly asked me to pass on his reply and also get some incite. I requested when he has time to join our discussion.

    Dannyboy I can agree but then disagree this is my conclusion and please pass it on in your discussion.

    Article 3 section 2 clause 1 US constitution.

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy — that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the court. The Court and legal scholars commonly refer to the issue of whether a “case or controversy” exists as the concept of standing.

    As you see the issue of “standing or case of controversy” is as he said interpreted under this article. What I argue is the amiss of definition as yes there is 3 standard constitutional rules.

    1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

    2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (global warming caused by EPA’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions satisfied element of causation for Massachusetts’s alleged injury of loss of coastland).

    3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[4]

    Now the judicial invention comes in on another set of 3 rules as follows

    .

    1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others, for example, a party suing that a law prohibiting certain types of visual material may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of others engaged in similar displays might also be damaged as well as those suing. Additionally, third parties who don’t have standing may be able to sue under the next-friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract.

    2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches

    3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest

    1. Zone of Injury – The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.[5]

    2. Zone of Interests – The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.[6]

    Now if good and fine Congress can come in and over rule these last 3. The question is where is checks and balance? Can the congress adjudicate by over rule these last test rules if controlling party finds something in them to determent their interests? This is why my explanation to the unconstitutional definition of “standing” being inclusive of these judicial inventions if only once but has been used many times sets precedent and says the constitution is a living document with the ability of all branches of government to manipulate. This also says that limitless power of government determines not the will of the people but the will of those in power because if we the judicial branch of government can change the rules to who we think has “standing” and the congress can say no we don’t like these rules so go by the constitutional rules. Then the powers that be determine who can redress grievance and who cannot. If the definition of standing goes by Article 3 section 2 clause 1 yes in deed it is in the constitution and must be defined with disregard to the last 3.

    Mr. Eigernorthface has credentials that I cannot compare with. I have read your e-mail with the answers he has given you and thanks to him for mentoring you. As you are aware Dannyboy I am in infancy practice according to the UCMJ and have no experience in civilian matters. My limited knowledge can only grow with experience and with hope, I can help you with some issues. I am happy that you finally contacted me after such a long time and chastise you for the reason but do understand the study will keep you busy. I hope civilian life is doing you well. Do stop by and visit with the fly boys we do miss you.

    Maj. James (jimbo) Kelly.

46. Danney - November 14, 2008 at 3:14 am

    Thanks again Eigernorthface my friend Maj. James “Jimbo” Kelly asked me to pass on his reply and also get some incite. I requested when he has time to join our discussion.

    Dannyboy I can agree but then disagree this is my conclusion and please pass it on in your discussion.

    Article 3 section 2 clause 1 US constitution.

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy — that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the court. The Court and legal scholars commonly refer to the issue of whether a “case or controversy” exists as the concept of standing.

    As you see the issue of “standing or case of controversy” is as he said interpreted under this article. What I argue is the amiss of definition as yes there is 3 standard constitutional rules.

    1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

    2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (global warming caused by EPA’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions satisfied element of causation for Massachusetts’s alleged injury of loss of coastland).

    3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[4]

    Now the judicial invention comes in on another set of 3 rules as follows

    .

    1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others, for example, a party suing that a law prohibiting certain types of visual material may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of others engaged in similar displays might also be damaged as well as those suing. Additionally, third parties who don’t have standing may be able to sue under the next-friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract.

    2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches

    3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest

    1. Zone of Injury – The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.[5]

    2. Zone of Interests – The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.[6]

    Now if good and fine Congress can come in and over rule these last 3. The question is where is checks and balance? Can the congress adjudicate by over rule these last test rules if controlling party finds something in them to determent their interests? This is why my explanation to the unconstitutional definition of “standing” being inclusive of these judicial inventions if only once but has been used many times sets precedent and says the constitution is a living document with the ability of all branches of government to manipulate. This also says that limitless power of government determines not the will of the people but the will of those in power because if we the judicial branch of government can change the rules to who we think has “standing” and the congress can say no we don’t like these rules so go by the constitutional rules. Then the powers that be determine who can redress grievance and who cannot. If the definition of standing goes by Article 3 section 2 clause 1 yes in deed it is in the constitution and must be defined with disregard to the last 3.

    Mr. Eigernorthface has credentials that I cannot compare with. I have read your e-mail with the answers he has given you and thanks to him for mentoring you. As you are aware Dannyboy I am in infancy practice according to the UCMJ and have no experience in civilian matters. My limited knowledge can only grow with experience and with hope, I can help you with some issues. I am happy that you finally contacted me after such a long time and chastise you for the reason but do understand the study will keep you busy. I hope civilian life is doing you well. Do stop by and visit with the fly boys we do miss you.

    Maj. James (jimbo) Kelly.

47. Eigernorthface - November 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    To Major James Kelly and Denney:

    The letter was delivered to Offices of Condi Rice and John Negroponte (her Deputy) around 11:30 a.m. today 14 November 1947.

    In the meantime I have sought parallel and similar letters from the secretaries of state of Mississippi, Nebraska, California, Maryland and Utah.

    My goal is to get at least one registered voter, preferably a secretary of state, in all 50 states to send letters that closely parallel my own to Condi Rice. She can decertify any candidate being considered by the Electoral College. She can certify that Obama got the most votes of all the inelligible candidates. We don’t inaugurate inelligible candidates. The most votes of any eligible candidates would thus be received by McCain and Palin. They might be selected by the electors for inauguration — unless the majority of the electors chose to vote for some other eligible person — for example Hillary and Biden or Bob Barr and Biden, or some other eligible persons who volunteer to be considered, or who ran.

    The Berg v Obama Route is convoluted and slow, could take two or three years to run its course, even if Berg gets Cert, even if the case on the standing issue goes his way on its merits in the Supreme Court, even if the Supreme Court does not remand the case but accepts the entire matter for adjudication in the Supreme Court due to the urgency and importance of the matter — it could still take until January of 2010 to sort the matter out and come to a final ruling. In, the meantime Obama/Biden will have been installed in the White House. If Obama is disqualified in 2010, Biden would step up as per Amendment 20 section 3.

    One of my friends in Utah asked me if my 1st Amendment petititon to Condi really did have merit. Here’s what I told him:

    Dear Merrill — On the solidity of the information, let’s just say, yes I think it’s solid enough to request answers to my 4 little question. The first 2 questions can be answered “yes” or “no” — one word answers, not a lot of paper, not a lot of ink. After Obama came back to the USA, age 20+ he either did or did not reclaim his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance (notice I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on his place of birth – there are many who feel it was not in Honolulu Hawaii — but I’m just accepting that it was for the sake of argument). A non-minor who travels on a foreign passport thereby expatriates himself — he performs an act that is not consistent with his continuance as an American citizen, if he ever had that status. This act of expatriation can be reversed, but only if he takes the oath of allegiance to restore hsi citizenship. All the evidence would be in the hands of the State Department (or conceivably the Justice Department in the rare event that he took the oath of allegiance before the US Attorney General). Anyhow, Condi Rice has a sworn duty to assure the eligibility of the winner to serve when she certifies the results of the Electoral College. This is in the Constitution. That’s her duty as Secratary of State of the USA. Judge Surrick has told Philip J Berg that he does not have standing because the injury to him although direct is not special enough — the injury doesn’t run specifically to Philip J Berg as distinct from any other voter — so he lacks standing. This matter may be argued in the Supreme Court sometime in the next two or three years. It seems a very harsh and paradoxical holding. I did try to get some of the other candidates to join with Berg as co-plaintiffs in his case. Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Hillary, McCain — would all clearly have standing. So, far they have not expressed any interest. Any of the 535 electors would have standing — including any elector from Utah — they have a legal duty to assure the eligibility just as Condi does. They could join Berg and thus perfect his standing and let him get on with his case. So far, not a single elector has come forward. A lot of times the practice of Constitutional law entails just the lawyer and the Constitution out on Desolation Row (or Highway 61). I’ve been here before. If I’m the only person in the country willing to formally request that Condi Rice do her job well, then so be it, whatever happens, it’s my fate to live with it. But if 49 other Americans could join me — one voter from each other state — the league of American patriots if you like — the 50 who stood tall, then things might be different, especially is Fox news decided to run with the story. Four teeny tiny questions, easy paperwork to look up if it exists, Obama should be able to guide us to the place where he took the oath of allegiance if he did, so it’s just a matter of looking in a file, takes 5 minutes, and then a nickle for the xerox copy of the list of oath takers — and this somehow is too hard — we are better off just letting a foreigner be President if he wants it that much rather than spend 5 minutes to make sure the Constitution is being followed. The men who went up Suribachi didn’t think that was too hard, but today any effort no matter how slight, is just too hard. I don’t know if this is news — it’s proabaly something everybody but me knew already. Fox might turn it down, tell me I’m a dodo, I should wake up to the rules of the Brave New World. Anyhow, please recruit a letter sender for me if you can. They should do it on paper not by e-mail, and change the personal data and place so it fits them and not me, but keep the legal wording about the same. Send the letter to the address that’s on my letter. I also sent a copy to John Negroponte the Deputy Secretary at the same address. Both will arrive by noon today — in about 17 minutes. Moral suasion worked for Ghandi. There are still moral people in the USA. It could work here too — even if I have no standing — which Judge Surrick tells me I don’t.

    All the Best,

48. Eigernorthface - November 14, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    To Maj. Kelly and Danney,

    Even if everything goes right for Berg, the Supremes won’t render a final decision on the merits of his case for about a year — say by January of 2010. Berg has to win the Cert petition argument — that could happen by the end of December, but more likely no outcome till the end of January 2009. Then, the Supremes would have to agree that the case is urgent and important enough to skip remanding it back to the District Court and go straight to a trail on the merits before the Supreme Court. With the resources available to him as President, Obama could delay the actual trial date by at least 3 months, and make the trial itself last for at least a month. So figure Summer of 2009 as first possible time the Supremes could issue a final opinion in the case — even if everything goes perfectly for Berg.

    My route is shorter. Condi gets to certify the outcome of the Electoral College vote, and she cannot legally certify for inauguration the inelligible person who got the most votes — only the elligible person who got the most votes among the eliigible people can be certified.

    My 1st Amendment Petition to Condi was received by her and John Negroponte at or about 11:30 a.m. today 14 November 2008. In the meantime I have sought similar letters be written by citizens and secretaries of state all over the USA. Ideally I want at least 1 letter from a registered voter in each of the 50 states — I have Maryland — so I just need 49 more.

    One retired marine in Utah wanted assurance that my petition had merit. Here’s what I told him:

    Dear Merrill — On the solidity of the information, let’s just say, yes I think it’s solid enough to request answers to my 4 little question. The first 2 questions can be answered “yes” or “no” — one word answers, not a lot of paper, not a lot of ink. After Obama came back to the USA, age 20+ he either did or did not reclaim his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance (notice I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on his place of birth – there are many who feel it was not in Honolulu Hawaii — but I’m just accepting that it was for the sake of argument). A non-minor who travels on a foreign passport thereby expatriates himself — he performs an act that is not consistent with his continuance as an American citizen, if he ever had that status. This act of expatriation can be reversed, but only if he takes the oath of allegiance to restore hsi citizenship. All the evidence would be in the hands of the State Department (or conceivably the Justice Department in the rare event that he took the oath of allegiance before the US Attorney General). Anyhow, Condi Rice has a sworn duty to assure the eligibility of the winner to serve when she certifies the results of the Electoral College. This is in the Constitution. That’s her duty as Secratary of State of the USA. Judge Surrick has told Philip J Berg that he does not have standing because the injury to him although direct is not special enough — the injury doesn’t run specifically to Philip J Berg as distinct from any other voter — so he lacks standing. This matter may be argued in the Supreme Court sometime in the next two or three years. It seems a very harsh and paradoxical holding. I did try to get some of the other candidates to join with Berg as co-plaintiffs in his case. Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Hillary, McCain — would all clearly have standing. So, far they have not expressed any interest. Any of the 535 electors would have standing — including any elector from Utah — they have a legal duty to assure the eligibility just as Condi does. They could join Berg and thus perfect his standing and let him get on with his case. So far, not a single elector has come forward. A lot of times the practice of Constitutional law entails just the lawyer and the Constitution out on Desolation Row (or Highway 61). I’ve been here before. If I’m the only person in the country willing to formally request that Condi Rice do her job well, then so be it, whatever happens, it’s my fate to live with it. But if 49 other Americans could join me — one voter from each other state — the league of American patriots if you like — the 50 who stood tall, then things might be different, especially is Fox news decided to run with the story. Four teeny tiny questions, easy paperwork to look up if it exists, Obama should be able to guide us to the place where he took the oath of allegiance if he did, so it’s just a matter of looking in a file, takes 5 minutes, and then a nickle for the xerox copy of the list of oath takers — and this somehow is too hard — we are better off just letting a foreigner be President if he wants it that much rather than spend 5 minutes to make sure the Constitution is being followed. The men who went up Suribachi didn’t think that was too hard, but today any effort no matter how slight, is just too hard. I don’t know if this is news — it’s proabaly something everybody but me knew already. Fox might turn it down, tell me I’m a dodo, I should wake up to the rules of the Brave New World. Anyhow, please recruit a letter sender for me if you can. They should do it on paper not by e-mail, and change the personal data and place so it fits them and not me, but keep the legal wording about the same. Send the letter to the address that’s on my letter. I also sent a copy to John Negroponte the Deputy Secretary at the same address. Both will arrive by noon today — in about 17 minutes. Moral suasion worked for Ghandi. There are still moral people in the USA. It could work here too — even if I have no standing — which Judge Surrick tells me I don’t.

    All the Best,

49. Danney - November 14, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    I fired an e-mail to Maj. Kelly with a copy of what you wrote and your letter. He is quite a patriot and so are the flyboys (Air Force) I am sure we can get quite a bit of them to represent states.

50. Danney - November 15, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Eigernorthface I made a copy of your letter but changed the credentials part as suggested by you. Used a MS Word doc attachment to make it easy and requested they put their own in place then sent them to persons mostly military and family I had from my address book. This covered 23 states. Hopefully these people, as stated in the e-mails most important to uphold our constitution please comply with the request. I have already had a positive response from 7 of them and no negative responses as yet. Jimbo was one and did respond offering to print many and contact others who would also comply.

    Other law suits going on.

    New Jersey

    In Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, retired attorney and New Jersey resident Leo. C. Donofrio asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3 prohibiting three candidates from appearing on New Jersey’s ballots: Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Roger Calero.

    Donofrio claimed the candidates are not “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

    He wrote, Obama is not eligible for the presidency “even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, since … Senator Obama’s father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ …”

    “Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama,” the request states. “Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. And the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been verified by Respondent.”

    Donofrio said Panama has never been considered U.S. soil, and that McCain is merely a citizen at birth by statute, and not a “natural born citizen.”

    With three ineligible presidential candidates on ballots, Donofrio warned, New Jersey voters will “witness firsthand the fraud their electoral process has become.”

    Justice David Souter denied Donofrio’s application on Nov. 6. However, his case is still pending as an emergency stay application. Donofrio is resubmitting his request for an emergency stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Georgia

    Rev. Tom Terry of Atlanta, Ga., appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama’s original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president.

    “I bear no personal ill will against Barack Obama,” Terry, an independent, said in a statement. “In fact, his election solely on the basis as the first African-American president-elect is a very positive thing for our nation. However, as an American, I have very grave concerns about Mr. Obama’s possible divided loyalties since he has strenuously and vigorously fought every request and every legal effort to force him to release his original birth certificate for public review and scrutiny. I think that is significant.”

    On Oct 24, Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry’s request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel.

    “I don’t think you have standing to bring this suit,” he said. “I think that the attorney general has argued the law. I think he is correct. I think you are not a lawyer.”

    Terry is appealing his suit even though Obama didn’t win Georgia because he said he wants to set an example for other states. He is asking the court to direct Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel to decertify all votes for Obama.

    “Hopefully, this action will be noticed by other states and they will also take a serious look at the meaning of Georgia’s Supreme Court’s actions,” he said. “It is apropos that the Latin motto in the Georgia Supreme Court is interpreted: ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.’ I think if the Court rules in my favor, that motto will come alive with meaning and impact.”

    Hawaii

    On Oct. 17, Andy Martin filed a writ of mandamus in Hawaii’s Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital statistics record. His request to expedite the circuit court was denied on Oct. 22.

    Martin now has a pending case seeking access to Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate. The circuit court hearing is set to begin Nov. 18.

    The saga continues …

    Several unconfirmed reports also indicate that citizens of Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia have also filed lawsuits or requested court orders to verify Obama’s citizenship status.

    As reported earlier, WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth.

    But his discoveries only raised more questions.

    The governor’s office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin – leaving some to wonder if the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicates a Hawaiian birth or whether it was generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.

    The Obama campaign posted a certification of live birth, a document stating the baby was born on Aug. 4, 1961. However, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, there is a difference between the two documents. A certification of live birth is not an authentication of Hawaiian birth, and critics say the procedure could have allowed Obama’s mother to have the baby elsewhere, return to the U.S. and obtain the document in Hawaii.

    The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands makes a distinction between the two:

    In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

    However, Andy Martin has specifically requested verification of the original 1961 type-written certificate of live birth – or, as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands describes it, the “more complete record” of Obama’s birth.

    Further adding to complications, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

    But a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.

    Seeking to settle the issue, Hawaii Department of Health Director Director Chiyome Fukino released an Oct. 31 statement saying, “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    The statement does not clarify whether “the record” is a certification of live birth or a Hawaiian certificate of live birth.

    Before the election, WND retained a top private investigator in Hawaii with extensive FBI training and tasked him with visiting both the Queens Medical Center and the Kaliolani Medical Center to investigate claims that Obama birth certificates existed at either hospital.

    However, the private investigator reported that sheriff’s deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off press inquiries about Obama’s birth certificate.

    When WND asked the Obama campaign spokeswoman why Obama simply hasn’t released the original 1961 certificate of live birth to make the lawsuits go away, she replied, “I have no idea. I think they released what they chose to release, and Hawaii has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, so I don’t know what else you want.”

51. Danney - November 15, 2008 at 8:47 am

    ORLY TAITZ, Esq. (SBN 223433)

    26302 La Paz

    Mission Viejo Ca 92691

    Telephone: (949) 683-5411

    Facsimile: (949) 586-8110

    THE LAW OFFICE OF GARY G. KREEP

    GARY G. KREEP (SBN 066482)

    932 “D” Street, Suite 2

    Ramona, California 92065

    Tel: (760) 787-9907

    Fax: (760) 788-6414

    Attorneys for Petitioners

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

    COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

    Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes; Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr.; and

    Markham Robinson,

    Petitioners,

    v.

    California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; Senator Barack

    Hussein Obama; Senator Joe Biden; California Democratic

    Party Electors: Aleita Huguenin, Lou Paulson, Ian Blue,

    Mark Cibula, Richard Hundrieser, Lawrence DuBois, Mark

    Friedman, Mary Hubert, Fred Jackson, LeRoy King, Roberta

    Brooks, Audrey Gordon, Michael McNerney, Nancy Parrish,

    James Farley, John Freidenrich, Jeremy Nishihara, Jaime

    Alvarado, Vinz Koller, Gregory Olzack, David Sanchez, Larry

    Sheingold, Stephen Smith, Mark Macarro, Nathan Brostrom,

    Robert “Bob” Handy, Robert Conaway, Greg Warner, Lane

    Sherman, Ilene Huber, Kenneth Sulzer, Sanford Weiner, Ana

    Delgado Mascarenas, Joe Perez, Gwen Moore, Anthony

    Rendon, Karen Waters, Kelley Willis, Silissa Uriarte-Smith,

    Norma Torres, Alma Marquez, Ray Cordova, Patrick Kahler,

    Aaruni Thakur, Joe Baca, Jr., Juadina Stallings, Betty

    McMillion, William Ayer, Gregory Willenborg, James Yedor,

    Bobby Glaser, Mary Keadle, Frank Salazar, Christine Young,

    Sid Voorakkara, and DOES 1-100,

    Respondents.

    AMBASSADOR DR. ALAN KEYES, a resident of the State of Maryland, and DR. WILEY S.

    DRAKE, SR., and MARKHAM ROBINSON, each a resident of the State of California, all Petitioners

    herein, bring this litigation.

    PETITIONERS allege:

    I

    INTRODUCTION

    Parties

    1. Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Petitioner herein, is the Presidential candidate of the

    American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;

    2. Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the

    American Independent Party and is the Vice Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, in

    the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;

    3. Markham Robinson, Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the American

    Independent Party, Vice Chairman of America’s Independent Party, and Chairman of the American

    Independent Party;

    4. Debra Bowen, Respondent herein, is the Secretary of State of the State of California

    (hereafter referred to as “SOS”);

    5. Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Respondent herein, is the Presidential Candidate of the

    Democratic Party on the California State Ballot;

    6. Senator Joe Biden, Respondent herein, is the Vice-Presidential Candidate of the

    Democratic Party on the California State Ballot;

    7. Aleita Huguenin, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, in the State of California;

    8. Lou Paulson, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, in the State of California;

    3

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    9. Ian Blue, Respondent herein, is a Certified Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 1st Congressional District;

    10. Mark Cibula, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 2nd Congressional District;

    11. Richard Hundrieser, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and

    Vice-Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 3rd Congressional

    District;

    12. Lawrence DuBois, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 4th Congressional District;

    13. Mark Friedman, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 5th Congressional District;

    14. Mary Hubert, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 6th Congressional District;

    15. Fred Jackson, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 7th Congressional District;

    16. LeRoy King, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 8th Congressional District;

    17. Roberta Brooks, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 9th Congressional District;

    18. Audrey Gordon, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 10th Congressional District;

    19. Michael McNerney, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 11th Congressional District;

    20. Nancy Parrish, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 12th Congressional District;

    4

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    21. James Farley, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 13th Congressional District;

    22. John Freidenrich, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 14th Congressional District;

    23. Jeremy Nishihara, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 15th Congressional District;

    24. Jaime Alvarado, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 16th Congressional District;

    25. Vinz Koller, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 17th Congressional District;

    26. Gregory Olzack, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 18th Congressional District;

    27. David Sanchez, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee n the 19th Congressional District;

    28. Larry Sheingold, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 20th Congressional District;

    29. Stephen Smith, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 21st Congressional District;

    30. Mark Macarro, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 22nd Congressional District;

    31. Nathan Brostrom, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 23rd Congressional District;

    32. Robert “Bob” Handy, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and

    Vice-Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 24th Congressional

    District;

    5

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    33. Robert Conaway, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 25th Congressional District;

    34. Greg Warner, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 26th Congressional District;

    35. Lane Sherman, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 27th Congressional District;

    36. Ilene Huber, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 28th Congressional District;

    37. Kenneth Sulzer, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 29th Congressional District;

    38. Sanford Weiner, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 30th Congressional District;

    39. Ana Delgado Mascarenas, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and

    Vice-Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 31st Congressional

    District;

    40. Joe Perez, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 32nd Congressional District;

    41. Gwen Moore, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 33rd Congressional District;

    42. Anthony Rendon, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 34th Congressional District;

    43. Karen Waters, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 35th Congressional District;

    44. Kelley Willis, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 36th Congressional District;

    6

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    45. Silissa Uriarte-Smith, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and

    Vice-Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 37th Congressional

    District;

    46. Norma Torres, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 38th Congressional District;

    47. Alma Marquez, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 39th Congressional District;

    48. Ray Cordova, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 40th Congressional District;

    49. Patrick Kahler, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 41st Congressional District;

    50. Aaruni Thakur, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 42nd Congressional District;

    51. Joe Baca, Jr., Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 43rd Congressional District;

    52. Juadina Stallings, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 44th Congressional District;

    53. Betty McMillion, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 45th Congressional District;

    54. William Ayer, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 46th Congressional District;

    55. Gregory Willenborg, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 47th Congressional District;

    56. James Yedor, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 48th Congressional District;

    7

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    57. Bobby Glaser, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 49th Congressional District;

    58. Mary Keadle, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 50th Congressional District;

    59. Frank Salazar, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 51st Congressional District;

    60. Christine Young, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 52nd Congressional District;

    61. Sid Voorakkara, Respondent herein, is an Elector for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-

    Presidential Election, designated by the Democratic Party nominee in the 53rd Congressional District.

    Legal Basis

    62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:

    “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;”

    63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United

    States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the

    Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a “natural born” citizen.

    Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen. There are other legal

    challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning

    Senator Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that

    reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.

    64. SOS is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other

    things, verifying the qualifications of the voters, approving the ballots and the candidates, supervising the

    counting of the ballots, and certifying the results. This certification of the vote by SOS, based upon

    which Electors received the highest number of votes in the state, is the method provided for in California

    8

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    law for ascertaining which Electors are appointed to vote for president (California Elections Code §

    15505, 3 U.S.C. § 6). On December 1, or as soon as soon as the election results have been received from

    all counties in the state, SOS shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors to the Governor, and then

    transmit to each presidential Elector a certificate of election (California Elections Code § 15505). The

    Governor then issues and seals a Certificate of Ascertainment which is delivered to the Electors by

    December 15 (3 U.S.C. § 6), who then meet to sign the Certificate of Vote (Federal Election Code §

    192.006). The office of SOS is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and

    impartiality necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic

    basis for our elections.

    65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot,

    the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state

    Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by

    the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate

    attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no

    verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when

    requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and

    establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying

    the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the

    United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth

    certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his

    passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has

    resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other

    documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

    66. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the United

    States Constitution provides for a system of Electors, wherein citizens of the respective states have a state

    9

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    controlled election in which Electors representing the interests of the respective candidates for President

    on the state ballot are elected to represent the interests of the respective state in the Electoral College.

    Thus, there is no federal ballot controlled by the federal government. There is a California State ballot

    where voters elect Electors who in turn represent the named candidate for office on the ballot. That is one

    more reason why SOS has responsibility for the certification of not just the counts of the ballots cast, but,

    also, the propriety of the contents of the ballot. In case Senator Obama cannot present proper

    documentation verifying his citizenship, he cannot be elected President of the United States, and SOS has

    a duty to bar the casting of votes by California Electors in support of his candidacy.

    67. To avert a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through

    laborious legal challenges, this writ seeks to resolve such complaints. It was incumbent on the candidates

    to present the necessary documentation confirming his citizenship, but, to date, Senator Obama has failed

    to do so.

    68. At this point, Senator Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his vault

    (original hospital) birth records and supporting hospital records. Senator Obama’s citizenship status has

    been, and is being, challenged in 17 different legal actions in various federal and state courts, which

    challenges cast doubt on the validity of the electoral process, regardless of outcome, if not resolved prior

    to the certification of the election by the Electors. SOS is specifically charged with certifying and

    guaranteeing the validity of official documents and overseeing the elections in California, such that the

    people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, SOS

    has not carried out that fundamental duty.

    69. This writ requests a court order barring the SOS from both certifying to the Governor the

    names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of

    Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that is a “natural born” citizen

    of the United States and does not hold citizenship in Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, this

    writ requests a court order barring the California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such

    10

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of

    the United States and does not hold citizenship in Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain.

    70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office

    of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well

    as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the

    United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.

    71. 3 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 8 provides, “The electors shall vote for President

    and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.” This federal statute confers

    upon each elector an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate for President for which the

    elector is seeking election is a “natural born” citizen. Otherwise, the elector would not know if his vote

    was being cast in the “manner directed by the Constitution.”

    72. Given this constitutionally mandated duty, PETITIONERS have standing to bring this

    Writ before this Court.

    73. A growing number of questions have arisen in litigation in at least 10 states contesting

    whether Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama are “natural born” citizens and, therefore,

    constitutionally eligible to be entrusted with the Office of President of the United States. In the litigation

    against Senator Obama, allegations have been made that his admitted dual citizenship in Indonesia, and

    lack of evidence that he renounced the same, caused a loss of his United States Citizenship as a matter of

    law. Moreover, evidence released by the Obama campaign purporting to be a “Certification of Live

    Birth” on its face appears to be of questionable authenticity. One of the many problems with this

    evidence is that the border design differs from the border designs of other Certifications of Live Birth

    printed during the same time period. All these questions about both of the candidates are still unresolved.

    In the course of those lawsuits, some of which have been dismissed, it has been determined that there

    exists no designated official in the federal government, or the government of the states, directly charged

    with the responsibility of determining whether any Presidential candidate meets the qualifications of

    11

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    Article II of the Constitution of the United States. In most states, that responsibility is vested with the

    political parties, all of which have a conflict of interest in making any such determination, and none of

    which have been forthcoming with information or evidence verifying any candidate’s compliance with

    the eligibility requirements.

    74. A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department of Health by

    its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she had “personally seen and verified that the

    Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance

    with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by

    litigation and press accounts. Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer

    database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.

    75. Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a

    Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth

    resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a

    Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of

    the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate

    could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima

    facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth

    outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176

    allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault

    Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

    Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original

    vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the

    doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.

    76. An unprecedented and looming constitutional crisis awaits if a President elected by the

    popular vote and the electoral vote does not constitutionally qualify to serve in that capacity. In addition,

    12

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    if Senator Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and not eligible for presidency, Senator Obama will be

    subject to the criminal Provisions of the California Elections Code, stating, “Any person who files or

    submit for filing a nomination paper or declaration of candidacy knowing that it, or any part of it, has

    been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by

    imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by both the fine and

    imprisonment” (California Elections Code § 18203). Further, Senator Obama, SOS, the Governor of the

    State of California, and all of the California Electors may be subject to the penal provisions of the

    California Elections Code which states, “Any person who commits fraud and any person who aids or

    abets fraud or attempts to aid or abet fraud, in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, or attempted to be

    cast, is guilty of felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two or three years” (California

    Elections Code § 18500 ).

    77. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “if the President

    elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall

    have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a

    Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or in the manner in

    which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice

    President shall have qualified.” Thus, if Senator Obama cannot take office due to his citizenship,

    succession to the Presidency is set.

    II

    BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

    78. The Office of the Secretary of State of California is the California agency responsible for

    certifying candidates for inclusion on the ballot. Historically, California Secretaries of State have

    exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents, verifying that the candidates

    that were submitted by the respective political parties as eligible for the ballot were indeed eligible. In

    1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for

    13

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    President of the United States. The then SOS, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s

    birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot

    as a candidate for President. Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the

    ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of

    California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and

    Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the Presidential primary. When the

    then SOS checked his eligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was similarly not eligible, and Mr.

    Holmes was removed from the ballot. Currently, we have a similar situation in that the Democratic Party

    has submitted the name of Senator Barack Obama as candidate for President.

    79. However, there are a number of separate reasons that would make Senator Obama

    ineligible to serve as President of the United States. On August 21, 2008, Mr. Phillip J. Berg, former

    Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, filed a legal action against Senator Obama and the

    Democratic National Committee. With his action, and in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of

    the United States, Mr. Berg provided documents to the effect that Senator Obama was born in what is

    now Kenya (the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar at the time) and that his paternal

    grandmother was present at his birth. Senator Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii. According to

    statements made by his half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.

    According to his biography posted on Wikipedia, Senator Obama was born in Queens Hospital in Hawaii.

    However, he has never provided the original hospital birth certificate from 1961, with the name of the

    hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor in attendance. All that Senator Obama has posted

    on his website is a Registry of Live Birth (short version), obtained in 2007, that does not provide the

    name of the hospital or the doctor. Clearly, one human being cannot be born in three different places.

    Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of

    Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

    The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original

    14

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor

    that delivered him. From August 21, 2008, for over two months, Senator Obama has refused to provide

    his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, “… I

    found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records…” which shows that

    he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book. Particularly telling is the fact that not one

    single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to

    state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed

    that she “was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” Additionally, when Mr.

    Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, Senator Obama refused to sign a consent form

    that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information. Instead, Senator Obama has hired three

    law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an

    ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit. This matter is currently being reviewed by the

    U.S. Supreme Court. The parties in this case have standing to bring this litigation, due to the fact that Dr.

    Keyes and Dr. Drake, Sr., are candidates on the California ballot for President and Vice President of the

    United States, and Mr. Robinson is an Elector for the Keyes-Drake ticket, and Vice Chairman of

    America’s Independent Party, of Fenton, Michigan, which nominated Dr. Keyes for President. He is also

    a Chairman of the American Independent Party (California), which nominated Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake

    for President and Vice President, respectively. Based on the foregoing, it is imperative for SOS to be

    provided proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen.

    80. If he was born in Hawaii, there are four (4) other obstacles to Senator Obama’s

    eligibility. In and about 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia, took the last name of his stepfather,

    Soetoro, and went by the name Barry Soetoro. In original legal action filed by Mr. Berg, he presented

    Senator Obama’s school registration, showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship-Indonesian,

    Religion Islam, signed by L. Soetoro. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and,

    therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Senator Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her son’s U.S.

    15

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would make him ineligible to become

    a United States President. Additionally, the United States could not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia

    at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention

    of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign Country.

    81. In addition, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Senator Obama

    would have been required to go to the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship.

    There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized

    citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.

    82. Additionally, assuming Senator Obama was born in what is now Kenya, at the time of

    Senator Obama’s birth in 1961, (now) Kenya was the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Senator Obama

    was automatically accorded a form of British citizenship under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality

    Act of 1948, effective date January 28, 1949, based on his father’s citizenship.

    83. Finally, in 1981, Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, when there was a ban for U.S.

    citizens to travel to Pakistan. The only logical possibility for him to do so was by using one of his other

    passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.

    84. Based on all of the above, it is the duty of the SOS to obtain proper documentation of

    Senator Obama’s citizenship to confirm his eligibility for the office of the President of the United States.

    85. On October 25, 2008, SOS was contacted, via e-mail, by Orly Taitz, Esq., discussing the

    issues mentioned above. SOS has acknowledged receipt of said e-mail and sent a response. As of that

    time, SOS was on notice and had a duty to act. Ms. Taitz had a subsequent conversation with the election

    analyst of SOS Office, Ms. Philly Crosby. Ms. Taitz requested an administrative hearing on the matter in

    question. Ms. Crosby stated that she would discuss the matter with Ms. Bowen and SOS’ General

    Counsel, Ms. Pam Giarizzo, and that Ms. Giarizzo would telephone Ms. Taitz to discuss the issue. Ms.

    Taitz followed this conversation with a second e-mail, confirming all the details of the conversation. As

    yet, SOS has taken no steps to request the necessary documents from Senator Obama. It appears that Ms.

    16

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    Bowen is intending to certify Senator Obama, and to certify his Electors, and not protect the people of the

    State of California by enforcing its laws. As a result of SOS declining to act pursuant to the above

    described legal obligations, the only remedy is to request relief from the Superior Court of California, and

    seek injunctive relief available to bar SOS from certifying the California Electoral votes until such

    documentary proof that Senator Obama’s United States citizenship is produced.

    III

    EFFECT OR FAILURE TO GRANT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

    86. Failing to officially and publically validate the status of the citizenship claims of Senator

    Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves. A proper

    inquiry into Senator Obama’s eligibility will not constitute a hardship on Senator Obama, and it will not

    deny his voters the right to vote for him, since this very right is dependent on his eligibility for the office

    as a “natural born” citizen. If Senator Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, and, therefore, not eligible to

    serve as President, no hardship on him or any other Respondent can be shown. On the contrary, lack of

    the relief that is prayed for will constitute an insurmountable hardship on the voters of the State of

    California.

    87. Failure to grant the relief sought would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent,

    nomination and election process to continue. If indeed, Senator Obama knew that he is not eligible for

    the presidency, he would be subject to California Election Code Section 18203, which states, “Any person

    who files or submits for filing a nomination paper or declaration of candidacy that it or any part of it has

    been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by

    imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by both fine and imprisonment”.

    Additionally, he would be subject to California Elections Code Section 18500 that states, “Any person

    who commits fraud and any person who aids or abets fraud or attempts to aid or abet fraud, in connection

    with any vote cast, to be cast, or attempted to be cast, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment

    for 16 months or two or three years”. Clearly it is imperative to vet Senator Obama’s eligibility for

    17

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    presidency and resolve this issue prior to the certification of the election results by the electors.

    88. Failure to grant the relief sought, demanding that SOS be ordered to verify the

    constitutionally required qualifications of Senator Obama not only allows, but promotes, an

    overwhelming degree of disrespect for our Constitution and for our electoral process, and creates such a

    lack of confidence of voters in the primary and electoral process itself, that it would confirm a common

    belief that no politician has to obey the laws of this Country, respect our election process, or follow the

    United States Constitution.

    89. Petitioners Keyes and Drake will be irreparably harmed by being unable to compete in a

    fair and unbiased election. Petitioner Robinson will be harmed in that he will not be able to perform his

    duties as an Elector in voting for the candidate that is eligible to become the President of the United States

    under the law. It is incumbent on SOS to enforce the eligibility requirements.

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully prays:

    90. That the court issue a peremptory writ in the first instance barring Respondent Secretary

    of State of California, Ms. Bowen, from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California

    Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such

    documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the

    United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, this writ

    requests that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Respondent California Electors from signing the

    Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is

    a “natural born” citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great

    Britain.

    91. For Petitioners’ attorney’s fees.

    // //

    // //

    18

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    92. For such costs of this proceeding and fees as are applicable by law; and such further relief

    as the Court deems just and proper.

    Respectfully submitted on November 12, 2008

    ___SIGNATURE VIA FAX_______

    Gary G. Kreep, Esq.

    Attorney for Petitioners

52. Eigernorthface - November 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Danney I give you Magna Cum Laude for your excellent efforts — I know you haven’t graduated yet, but when a law student can change the course of history, some serious praise is in order.

    My comments on what you’ve shown me today:

    Alan Keyes would have been much better off to just join the Berg case. That case is going to be argued for and against granting the Writ of Certiorari on December 1, 2008 — in two weeks time. If Keyes had joined the Berg case, the standing issue might have been resolved. I assume that Keyes really was on the ballot in some state as a Presidential candidate. Any candidate really on the ballot, clearly has standing. They have been specifically injured in ways that Berg has not. The standing rules are a very harsh and paradoxical part of our laws, but they have been there for 50 years, and tested in the Supreme Court at least six times, so they are like the rock of ages — not likely to budge or be budged.

    Keyes is a person of no small ego — I don’t think this makes me a critic, simply an observer. Anyone who has ever heard him speak can judge if I speak rightly on this point.

    Ego sometimes gets in the way of doing the best and most efficient thing. People who get things done usually don’t care who gets the credit — they don’t have to start their own lawsuit in their own name, they could just join another, more advanced lawsuit already in progress and about to be argued in the Supreme Court.

    Turning to a second point, the Martin v Lingle case looks very promising if there really is a typed version of the Hawai’i birth certificate. Possibly Martin should add the Hawai’i Secretary of State as a defendant if that can be done without delaying the case — if he can still amend as a matter of right. The typed record might at least show the hospital in Hawai’i where Obama was born supposedly. By doing that it would lead to further and better evidence in the Hospital’s records. 1961 is not so long ago that all those records in the warehouses would have been destroyed or lost by now. If the right hospital were known, the original birth paperwork by the Doctors and nurses would be available and probably an excellent source of correct and truthful data.

    I am pleased that there are gallant men who are willing to send letters to Condi Rice similar to my own. It’s a commitment of time to re-write my letter, get it on paper, and send it out. I praise those people for their courage, for their commitment, for their unselfishness.

    Please try of keep a record of all people who do send in such letters. The Legion of American Patriots might be names that really should shine because out of 300 million people they are the few who care.

    The Founders felt that it was asking too much for the Commander in Chief to be anything other than a natural born American — asking too much of the persons in uniform — that they should without question obey the orders of a National Command Authority who might be working for another country not this one. On matters of political philosophy these Founders were perhaps the smartest and most educated people that have ever existed in the world. Their phrases ring in our ears, their document is kept in a glass case at the National Archives, their intentions resonate in our hearts. At least in the hearts of some of those Air Force and Army guys you’ve told me about. I don’t mind being out on Desolation Row or Highway 61 but it gives me great joy and deep satisfaction when another person, or several others stand up and say “Yes, we also want Condi Rice to do the right thing!”

    All the best,

    Eigernorthface

53. Danney - November 15, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    Eigernorthface, Thank you as well for your tutelage. I will strive and is my goal to obtain the honor of Magnum cum Laude as a practicing experienced professional you are on course to give me far more to think about and reason then books, lecture or internet research. As I said before some that lecture have political interests over the teaching. It is also said that what you learn in the institutions of learning most does not always apply in the real practice. Experience always is the best teacher. I hope that you will remain the one that points me when I am going the wrong direction and gives me a priceless wealth of real law situations.

    I will give my best and as I love the study of law, study of history, American culture and how greatness was blessed on our country. I am a firm believer that our founders had far more wisdom the them of failed Empires. I see our founders took great lesson from the Roman Empire and its misgivings.The lessons learn was not to follow mistakes that brought it down. We in our lifetime has seen to fall of the Soviet Empire but often some forget that the ideas followed by the Soviet empire was its misdoing and attempt to try again these without regard to human natures desire for freedom with only good laws limiting citizens freedom. By granting reward for efforts to succeed then limiting government to allow the process of success and granting powers to people under good law. Understanding the need for sovereignty in leaders elected thus banning those with duo alliances(duo citizenship or citizenship other then and place of birth that commands patriotism to that place). This gives true leadership with the interest of those lead and also the interest of the country they lead. The reason I did not support Obama is because even if he has proven to be a natural born and a citizen with association of ones that apparently influenced him wrongly. His allegiances to a group and one that has wrongly blamed Americans for problems suffered from the very actions of the group creating these problems.

    I am challenged in my study but more important is my patriotic duty. I am not a person to stand down and wait until others do something but stand up and do as much as I am able and then encourage others to follow. When I believe something in deed is effecting or can effect negatively our great country I will use my experience and training as a leader within the military and my fortitude to never give in until the problem is scourged.

    I realize we as 2 cannot do this alone that we do need the resources of many. Two candle only lights a small area but them candles can light other candles, torches and bonfires that brings light if done enough to the world. You have lit the first then mine and I will lite many others. The military members are a great resource as they come from all walks of life and places. They are true patriots as members are voluntary. They are sworn to uphold the constitution even to death. We as a group will get this done.

    Thanks once again.

54. Eigernorthface - November 16, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    I think we have the basis for some action in place. It is quite importent that when the military guys send their letters to Condi Rice they also send in a copy to the Editors of the Editorial Page of their local newspapers. These would be then published as Op-Ed letters.

    It’s good but not effective to ask Condi Rice to do a proper inquiry and to do the right thing. It’s not effective because she can simply collect a few hundred letters in a file, then the file gets shredded as part of the ordinary document retention protocol — it would stay for one year or two years — but then get shredded.

    However, if the respectful requests the Secreatary of State have been published by little town newspapers all over the country, it not as easy for her to disregard the whole matter.

    The basis strategy of government is to disregard everything they are not compelled to respond to in some way.

    If they have to respond to this, they can try to make a case that the four little questions are too impertinent to be worthy of their time and attention. But that case would only be plausible if the four questions were really hard to answer, imposing an onerous and burdensome process of inquiry on a busy and dutiful Secretary of State. It would be easier for them to just answer the questions. The first two are just yes or no, and Condi is in a better position than any other American to verify with Indonesia and Pakistan the answers. The second two questions would be very easy to answer if Obama would disclose where and when he took the Oath of Allegiance. This is the sort of thing that would stick in a person’s mind — so I don’t think he could plausibly say — I know I did but I can’t remember exactly where or when. Once we have a location and time, it could take as much as a day or two to get the file out of the warehouse, and check the list. They don’t do those Oaths without making a list and keeping it as a permanent record, in fact those records should be collected in a central file at the State Department, so Condi could just look it up in her own Offices there on C street, or in the GSA warehouse that provides permanent long-term records storage.

    If she knows she has to do her job, and she knows the job is easy to do, the pressure to just go ahead and do it will be stronger than the natural governmental response which is to skate by and hope it blows over.

    It’s much better to figure this out now than a year or two into the Obama Administration — so our letter writing patriots are doing America a favor — no matter which way it comes out after a proper inquiry has been made. Somebody with undeniable standing is bound to join the Berg case sooner or later. That case or a clone of it will rattle around in the courts until the central core issue is put to rest, which could be done right now, for very little money with very little fuss.

    We have enough problems in this country right now without installing into the Office of President a person about which there are plausible doubts based upon simple matters of fact and easily obtainable documentary evidence which could be brought forward to allay the doubts and end the matter once and for all. Four little questions — let the People see them, then they can judge, is it the question askers that have a problem or is it Condi Rice?

    The government will do the right thing every time about 60 seconds after that becomes the last viable alternative for them to follow. The main threat we face is the shredder. The way to avoid it, is to make the questions public enough so that dropping the file into the shredder does not do the government any good. They will answer as soon as they see they have no other plausible decent choice — every other avenue has been closed off.

    All the Best,

    Eigernorthface

55. Danney - November 16, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    The letter was published at this site

    http://www.newsflavor.com/Politics/US-Politics/Stand-for-Our-Constitution.346887

    On this site I explained to cut and paste to word doc format or printable and send out via USPS.

    Then passed around via stumble upon. So far has reachieved 426 hits. I am sure we will get some response from others. I have also posted this on numerous conservative blogs. I believe we will get a reach what we needed.

56. Danney - November 17, 2008 at 3:00 am

    Eigernorthface,

    I am receiving excellent responses to my email campaign. I am collecting the names and states and will post them here as soon as I get all fifty states affirmation of action.

57. Eigernorthface - November 17, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Danney here is a note I posted on the thread created today about the Keyes case:

    Keyes should have just joined the Berg case as an additional plaintiff. This would have eliminated the standing question in the Berg case and allowed the facts to be gotten to sooner.

    There’s is no point in Obama offerring up any documents on the internet. It will take a trained document examiner the better part of a week to examine and come to a conclusion about any document he does offer up. I mean a person with 20 years of experience at the FBI or CIA in forensic document authentication — and they will need to obtain a variety of samples for comparison — so let’s just say a week by a highly trained and extensively experienced career professional.

    In the meantime, internet speculations, about this or that document are a total waste of time. This sort of thing is done with a big microscope, a reflection spectrometer, lab equipment to test paper content, and ink content, a gas chromatograph, and a variety of techniques involving osmosis such as eletrophoresis. It’s not something that an “expert” from fact check or anywhere else can see on their computer screen.

    In any case, the location of Obama’s birth, is the least strong of Berg’s claims — the one least likely to lead to an opinion that disposes of the case.

    The strongest Berg claim has to do with Obama’s travel to Pakistan in 1981, when he was 20 years old, on an Indonesian passport. Did this really happen or not? If it did, it is significant because a 20 year old person is not a minor. That act would constitute self-expatriation. The expatriation could be reversed only by later taking the Oath of Allegiance before a judicial or consular officer or the Attorney General.

    Anyone taking such an oath would remember where and when they did it. If Obama did take such a oath, he could point us to where and when. Then it’s just a question of looking in the files. They keep files about that. The data is also kept at the State Department either at C Street in Washington, or in their GSA leased warehouse for long-term storage of official records. It’s a five cent problem if Obama took the oath and discloses where and when he did that.

    Condi Rice needs to answer four little questions before she certifies the outcome of the Electoral College vote:

    1. Did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?

    2. Did Obama enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?

    3. Did Obama subsequently take the Oath of Allegiance to reclaim and restore his US citizenship?

    4. If so, where did he do that, and when was the oath taken?

    The total cost of answering these four little questions is extremely small — it could take as much as a week and cost as much as $100 — including phonecalls to Pakistan and Indonesia.

    If Condi Rice knowingly makes a false official statement in certifying the vote of the Electoral College, that would be a felony. If she fails to make a simple and frugal inquiry into the Indonesia/Pakistan/Oath of Allegiance matter, that would be gross and willful dereliction of duty, which would be a serious offense, if not a felony.

    The Article II requirement is not a detail. It goes to the issue of good order and discipline in the military. These are people at all ranks from General to private who may be asked to lay down their lives at the direction and command of the President. The Founders thought they needed to know that the Article II requirements were met. The Founders knew more about political philosophy and having amazingly astute foresight than anybody alive before then or since their time — and surely more than anybody alive today — and most certainly more than anybody blogging on the internet, myself included.

    Eigernorthface has approved this message 17 Nov 08 1825 EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 17, 2008 06:28 PM

    I’m pleased, and all the active duty people and vets I’ve talked to in my little town and around the country, with the fact that there’s some letters being written. As, I say, getting them onto the Op-Ed pages of small town newspapers is very important — that’s what keeps our whole file out of the State Department shredder. They have to KNOW they can’t skate by this.

58. Danney - November 17, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Eigernorthface,

    I am handling incredible responses from my military friends and much more. I will in my reply insist that they get this to the news papers. I will make it easy for them to do so as I will improve the letter to include a press release later.

    I do agree this is the best way to pursue factual proof as it is the easiest and most likely to succeed.

59. Mike Miller - November 17, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    I’m not in the military, but I do believe in the cause and you can be sure of at least one letter from Kentucky. I’ll be passing it along to friends as well.

    The flag out front under the American Flag says “We Support Our Troops”… and we do.

60. Danney - November 18, 2008 at 5:15 am

    Mike Miller

    Thanks for supporting the troops. I am hopeful a lot of Americans will respond no matter if civilian or military. Thanks too we can count on Kentucky.

61. Eigernorthface - November 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Danney — I have received new information to the effect that Condi Rice may not be the one to certify the results of the Electoral College. I’m not sure on that point amymore. The following post was put up today and it explains where I come out on that point as of this moment. The green card has come back from Condi Rice’s Office, so I know my letter to her was delivered, which respectfully asks the four questions. She is ideally positioned to answer them, and this is the right moment to do that work, not a year or two into the Obama Administration. The sentence in my letter which describes Condi Rice as the official that certifies the results of the Electoral College, may be deleted, since I’m not sure it’s true, but the four questions should still be be addressed to her at this time — that part is OK.

    Article II, section 1, paragraph 3 does give the procedure that Bama 1L describes. He may be correct on the issue of Condi Rice certifying the result of the Electoral College vote. As the U.S. Secretary of State she is however ideally situated to acquire the information in the four questions:

    1. Did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?

    2. Did he do so on an Indonesian passport?

    3. Did he subsequently take the Oath of Allegiance to restore his U.S. citizenship?

    4. If so, where is the paperwork on that transaction — can the written record be produced?

    These are questions of international law requiring diplomatic efforts to get the answers, at least for questions 1 and 2. For questions 3 and 4 it is most likely that if Obama did take the Oath of Allegiance the records of that fact would be retained at the State Department long term archives. This would be true even if he took the Oath of Allegiance in a Federal Court, or before the U.S. Attorney General.

    So Condi may not be the certifier of the Electoral College vote, but she is certainly the person who should get the first opportunity to come up with the answers to the four questions.

    None of those questions are non justiciable.

    None of those questions are “political questions” within the meaning of that term under American caselaw. These are straight up matters of fact — he travelled or he didn’t, on an Indonesian passport, or not, then he took the Oath of Allegiance or he didn’t, and there’s paperwork on that or there’s not. No part of these four questions requires or admits of the exercise of political choicemaking or political discretion. They are as much political questions as the location of the Washington Monument is a political question — in other words — they are not at all political questions. They are matters of fact, no more, no less.

    Let’s assume that all the certifying is done right there in the Congress, with the President of the Senate presiding over the proceedings. Would these proceedings be subject ot judicial review? Would any participant be subject to a Writ of Mandamus commanding that certain inquiries be made, and successfully brought to their factual outcomes before the final determination is made of who was in fact legitimately elected?

    This is a tough question. The Constitution does not specify any set of inquiries that must be made to assure that the requirements of Article II section 1 have been met. Does this mean that the Electors are free to be 100% perfectly negligent about making sure a candidate is eligible? Could they, for example, just glance at a purported document offered up on the internet, and then proclaim themselves to be fully satisfied, no further inquiries needed? How about if they got the newspaper clipping from Hawai’i where rhe Obama Baby birth is announced — could they say “Sure he’s a citizen, see it’s right there in the paper! Let’s move on to other business!”

    I would suggest that the Electors must behave as reasonable persons in order to escape judicial review of their actions. They have to take reasonable steps to assure that the Constitution is being complied with. Otherwise, the Court can command them to take those steps. Let’s call that checks and balances. The counting of the votes and the certifying of the winner is a political question as long as the participants do so in a reasonable manner. That has got to be the intent of the Constitution. This means that if they act in an arbitrary, capricious, willful, or grossly negligent manner, then what they do may be amended and guided by Writs from the Courts. This is not like the passage of ordinary legislation. Under Marbury v Madison it is the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the Constitution means, and in this case whether it is being properly complied with.

    With regard to the DNC, the FEC, the Obama Litigators — one must observe that if they were trying to create a constitutional crisis, they would not act any differently than the way they have actually acted. The evasiveness, the secretiveness, the stonewalling, the refusal to disclose information freely that people have a right to ask about, and be concerned about, and want answers about. Many organizations in this world do not act in reasonable ways — the DNC is an excellent example at this time, but the Obama Litigators have got to come is a close second.

    One way or another it would be far better to resolve this matter before January 20th than after. Condi Rice could play a pro-active role getting the four little questions answered — or it could all be left to a mad scramble at the very last minute.

    The possible need to review British law is an interesting twist. So is Obama a Kenyan, and Indonesian, or an American? Hard to say. I don’t think the Electors have the resources to figure it out, and I don’t think they have the leeway to be 100% negligent about it — just nonchalant, sans souci, devil may care about it.

    The Supreme Court should head off the crisis by hearing the Berg case on its merits, and if the merits are good enough, directing that a proper investigation be done — probably led by Condi Rice with the assistance of the Attorney General.

    Posted on the Keyes Case thread by: Eigernorthface at November 18, 2008 02:16 PM

    Reposted to a different thread (the Berg v Obama thread)by Eigernorthface November 18, 2008 1554 hrs EST

62. Eigernorthface - November 18, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Here’s a copy of my post on another thread (the Keyes Case Thread)

    I’ve never suggested any conspiracy in connection with the eligibility of Obama.

    I’m ready to accept the idea of no involvement by the Courts. It sounds like it would be part of the Constitution. I see the analogy to Article I section 5, it seems apt and germaine.

    OK so if it’s up to the Electors, I guess my question is where are they going to get their data from — what’s the machinery by means of which they will investigate this matter.

    The Electors don’t have a State Department, or an FBI, or a CIA to do the fieldwork for them — how will they get it done?

    Are they going to just use their intuition? Would it be something they decide from the gut?

    Don’t you think it would be better for Condi Rice right now that she has my letter (green card right here in my hand) and maybe a few dozen more asking the same thing — wouldn’t it be better for her to just find out the answers?

    What would it cost $100, a couple of phone calls. What would it take a day, two days?

    Why does the government always have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the obvious simple right thing? Why does Berg have to sue. Why does Keyes have to sue. Why can’t somebody in the government just do their jobs — even without being sued — even without a Writ of Mandamus from the Supreme Court — just do their jobs.

    No one ever expected the DNC or the FEC do any job besides taking their paychecks to the bank — that’s their job — no one thinks they are goign to do more than that. OK great — but how about a little investigative work by the State Department and the FBI and the CIA.

    I’m not talking about deciding who can run for election. I’m just talking about making sure the Article II requirements are met. I’ve never offered the idea of conspiracy in any of my posts except to say that I have no suggestion along those lines. Obama is a fellow with much audacity — that’s not a conspiracy, right, to be audacious.

    I want the electors to do the right thing — whether a Court tells them to do it or not. Your idea seems right to me — I’m happy to keep the courts out of it. But I’m not happy to have an inelligible man inaugurated.

    The Founders wouldn’t be either in my opinion. They made Article II the way it was for a reason. Nobody should be asked to die by anyone but a fellow countryman. Any doubts about this matter undermines good order and discipline in the military. It’s a practical measure. We could call it a matter of prudence and practical ethics — like in the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) and in The Politics (Aristotle Again). Both of these books were read by the Founders.

    So, keep the courts out OK — but if you do that how can you insure the Electors will do the right thing and not just let every doubt skate by. Isn’t the lazy thing what most people do most of the time unless they feel someone is there to insist on the right thing being done? Can the Electors be reliably distinguished from slackers? Will they pay attention and get it right? What resources will they command to help them do that? What would be the harm in spending $100 right now to look into the matter a bit?

    I fear the Obama people doth protest too much. If they have nothing to hide, nothing to be swept under the rug, why not put the matter to rest — open up everything they have and know — let the sun shine in.

    I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, but I think the whole matter is being handled in a very dumb way by just about everybody in Washington, and who plans to come to Washington. Let’s call it a parallelism of dumbness — not a conspiracy — or we could call it a mutuality of not-my-jobism where everyone agrees the question is too hot to handle — so nobody does. No conspiracy is required, only that good men do nothing, and a foreigner may wind up in the Oval Office.

    This message approved by Eigernorthface 18 Nov 08 2245 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 18, 2008 10:48 PM

63. Danney - November 19, 2008 at 3:15 am

    Eigernorthface,

    Would it be helpful if we changed the letter to address to the Secretary of State in them states where as the withholding of electors voting until proof is provided would hold up the process? or are we barking up a tree the same as Alan Keyes?

    As I understand the Secretary of State of these states is the primary certification authority. As in Bush vs Gore the election process was finished of by the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certifying the vote.

    This may or may not bring to the attention of SCOTUS but as in Bush vs Gore most likely that is where it will head. They being the authority should demand the proof.

64. Danney - November 19, 2008 at 8:00 am

    The Washington Times full page article.

    http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/065_Obama%20Crimes%20Ad%20-%20Wash%20Times%2020081117.pdf

65. Eigernorthface - November 19, 2008 at 9:52 am

    No Danney — Keep the letters addressed to Condi Rice, not because she can de-certify the Electors, but because she is the person best positioned to get to the bottom of the problem — get the real data and solve the issue.

    The problem with the State Secretaries of State is that they are essentially helpless to have any meaningful impact on getting official records type information out of Indonesia and Pakistan.

    Condi has the right office and the right clout to accomplish the mission. She can find out if Obama ever held an Indonesian passport. She can inquire and get a real answer on whether he travelled to Pakistan in 1981 using his Indonesian passport. She would have a record of any oath of allegiance that Obama might have taken subsequent to 1981 to re-claim his US citizenship. Our State Department in Washington theoretically knows who our citizens are — they keep files about ex-patriated people who re-claim their citizenship. It’s in long-term storage — probably a GSA warehouse — Condi could have it in her office in an hour or two if she asked for it. Of course doing that efficiently requires that Obama cooperate and tell us where and when he took the oath of allegiance to re-claim his US citizenship after travelling on a foreign passport as an adult of sound mind acting voluntarily — a 20 year old person — not a kidnap victim, not mentally impaired — his free choice to represent himself as an Indonesian for purposes of entering Pakistan in 1981 — if he did that — he ex-patriated himself. If he later re-claimed US citizenship Condi would have 1000 times better access to the data than any State Secretary of State.

    The only problem with the Berg and Keyes cases is that Berg arguably does not have standing, and Keyes does not have the hearing scheduled in the US Supreme Court in about 10 days time. His case is still working its way up through the system — it’s not advanced enough procedurally to get to the Supreme Court in time to do much good before Obama is inaugurated. Now if those two guys could get together, they would have something real. Berg’s standing problem would be eliminated if Keyes joined him as a co-plaintiff. And Keyes timing problem would be eliminated if he could join a case that was far more advanced in terms of its progress through the courts.

    The Keyes case does have the advantage of going directly after the California Electors. If the Obama electors could be directed not to vote for inelligible Obama but to vote for someone else — anyone else who is eligible — then Obama’s victory over McCain would be a lot closer. Another case or two like the Keyes case, maybe from New York or Florida or Ohio, and McCain might emerge as the clear winner — the eligible guy who gets the most votes in the Electoral College.

    But for right now, the key is to solve the problem by getting the real data. Nobody is better positioned than Condi Rice to do that. So just remove the words “who wants to do her duty as the official that certifies the results of the Electoral College process.”

    Leave everything else as it is — especially the letters going to Condi Rice. She has the duty because she has the position from which this problem can best be investigated — as the state Secretaries of State do not — they are helpless to solve a problem like this one.

    I’m not 100% sure this problem should be resolved by the Courts. It might be a non-justiciable political question — something that the Constitution says should be resolved, without Court interference in the Electoral college. Article I Section 5 suggests a parallel and clearly calls for the matter to be handled by the legislative branch, not the Courts.

    But if a proper investigation is done, and I don’t think the Electoral College is in a position to do that, it does not matter who resolves the issue. The truth resolves the issue in any branch. If Obama is a foreigner, then the Courts wouldn’t let him be inaugurated, but neither would the Electoral College.

    So getting to the truth is much more important than getting the ideal case filed. Condi can get to the truth. So let’s petition her to do that. Let’s make it a petition that appears on Op Ed pages in small town papers all over the USA, so she can’t hide from it. People will want to know what steps she has taken to get to the bottom of the central question.

    Remember Watergate — where Deep Throat says “Follow the money” — well in this case it’s more like “Follow the truth”. Doing that will lead to the right outcome in any and all branches.

    Eigernorthface approved this message 19 Nov 08 0948 EST

66. Eigernorthface - November 19, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Let me see if I get this straight, the mother from Kansas goes to school in Hawai’i where she meets a guy from Kenya whom she marries and has a child by. Then she divorces the Kenya guy, and marries a guy from Indonesia. Then she takes the child (Obama) to Indonesia, where he attends Indonesian school. Then at age 20 he travels to Pakistan on an Indonesian Passport. Then he shows up in Southside Chicago — he goes to Columbia then Harvard Law School, then comes back to Southside to work as a community organizer. Then he’s elected to the Illinois Legislature — then the U.S. Senate — then possibly the Presidency of the USA.

    What does this sound like to you? Does it sound anything like a conspiracy? Doesn’t it sound more like a crazy quilt topsy turvy existential kaliedoscope of happenstance?

    I never heard a story that sounded less like a conspiracy than the Obama story. His story is much more like the perils of Pauline than like the Manchurian Candidate. It’s a farrago of fantastic bouncing around almost like a lotto ball in the plexiglas air box — that’s not how conspiracies go.

    Conspiracy means intentional, carefully planned, meticulously organized — Obama is an organized guy, but his life story is more like a lotto ball than like a conspirator.

    I think that there’s a better than 50% chance that he was actually born in Hawai’i. That’s not enough to make him a natural born citizen. The rules in Hawai’i in 1961 were not the same as the rules in El Paso today. The mother would have to meet a certain residency requirement — a certain amount of time that she was a resident in the US prior to the birth for Obama to automatically become a US citizen just by being born in Hawai’i in 1961.

    When she took him to Indonesia as a minor child under her care custody and control and became an Indonesian citizen herself by marrying an Indonesian man, after her divorce from the Kenya guy (Obama Sr.), Obama Jr. would conditionally have become an Indonesian citizen.

    But if you have US citizenship — which maybe Obama Jr. did before being taken to Indonesia, you can’t lose it involuntarily — just by being dragged along with your mother to Indonesia.

    On the other hand, in 1981, Obama was no longer a minor. He represented himself as an Indonesian when he entered Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He was not kidnapped and taken to Pakistan. He was not mentally unfit. He was an adult travelling voluntarily and fully responsible for his own conduct. That conduct constitutes self-expatriation. The self-expatriation was reversable — he could come back and take the Oath of Allegiance and restore his US citizenship if he ever really had the right to that citizenship. That’s the document we need to see, the file record that shows Obama restoring his citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance.

    Without that, there is strong evidence that he is not a citizen, and no evidence that he is a citizen. This is true regardless of what paperwork is ever found or authenticated about the place of his birth. Even if they find the long form vault copy of his birth certificate with doctor, nurse, or midwife signature on it.

    If Obama is not a citizen, it doesn’t matter what lawsuits are filed. Any of the three branches of government are fully capable of telling the man he cannot be inaugurated. The best branch in this case is not the judicial branch — it is the legislative branch via the Electoral College.

    The problem comes because the Electors are in a very poor position to do a proper investigation. They don’t have the time, the talent, or the resources. Condi Rice really ought to do the investigation — she can call Indonesia and Pakistan, and she can check her own files at the State Dept.

    When the Electors meet the Chair will be the President of the Senate. He gets to open the votes and count them. He also has to certify the eligibility of the person designated as the winner. This should be done in the legislature, not in the courts (see also Article I section 5, which deals with a parallel issue in the legislature itself).

    The facts are all that matter here — not which branch tells Barack he’s not the President — any branch will do — the legislature would be best, Condi can be helpful, by doing a proper investigation using her unique position. She has the duty because she’s in position to do the job — no American could do it more efficiently given the specific facts that need to be looked into in this case.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 1724 hrs EST 19 Nov 2008

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 19, 2008 05:28 PM

    Re-Posted on Berg v Obama Thread at 1736 EST November 19, 2008

67. Eigernorthface - November 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    For the record let me re-say. If any part of Obama’s qualifications depend in any way on persons from Kenya, or any other foreign nation that does not have a tradition of science (here are the ones that do — All of old Europe plus Japan and China), then all the foreign affiants testimony should count as null — nothing, nada, nihil — I would not take it — why would you? I don’t care it’s the Archbishop of Mumbo Jumbo or the Pope of Mumbo Jumbo. It’s Mumbo Jumbo and we are Americans — and that sort of stuff does not get into our electoral process.

    Here’s what counts.

    1. Obama did or did not travel to Pakistan in 1981.

    2. He did or did not do this on an Indonesian passport.

    3. He was or was not 20 years old at the time, not a kidnapped person, not a minor, not a mentally infirm person.

    4. He did or did not re-claim his US citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance as required by law.

    These are four tiny litte facts not so inconceivable to verify one way or the other that a 100 Trillion dollar per year government could not possibly find $100 to go verify these facts one way or the other.

    And yet, somehow, we can’t. The interest just is not there. We don’t care. We don’t know. It’s just too hard. Just send us some “share the wealth” kind of thing — maybe $500 or $1000 per month — we don’t know — we don’t care — just keep it coming.

    That’s what I’m up against. Do I expect to win? Yes, I do! And my most earnest hope is to win in the Electoral College and not in the courts. It would be very wrong for American courts to meddle in here and tell us who can and cannot run for office — that’s how Pakistan and Iran and Iraq are run. We have a different system.

    Let Condi Rice get the facts. Let the President of the Senate know the facts. Let all the candidates be told truthfully and with verity if they are elligible. Let the non-eligible candidates step back. Let the eligible candidate with most votes in the Electoral College step forward. Let us inaugurate the right person.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 2000 hours 19 November 2008

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 19, 2008 08:12 PM

    Re-posted to Berg v Obama thread at 19 November, 2008 at 2020 hrs EST

68. Eigernorthface - November 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Danney here is a re-post of a comment I made on the Keyes case thread today:

    To Nickf: Thanks for your excellent comments — totally on point and food for thought. Here are my initial thoughts about what you’ve said:

    1. If Obama is determined to be non-qualified in the Article II sense, then some of his electors might be free to vote for McCain as the next best choice right? If that happened, McCain could wind up with the majority of the electors plus one, right?

    2. Similarly, they could go for Biden — sort of a draft Biden movement in the Electoral College. If Biden agrees, then he could come out with a majority plus one, and I guess he gets to name his Number 2 — which could be anybody, including even John McCain, if McCain wants that job, right?

    3. They also could go for Hillary — she obviously wants the top job — if she got 90% of the Electors pledged to Obama, and 15% of the Electors pledged to McCain, she could wind up with a majority plus one right?

    4. We do really vote for Vice President. It doesn’t count much in our minds, but it’s legally there on the ballot. The Obama pledged Electors are also pledged to Biden. So maybe Cy Pres would apply — they could just slide on over to vote Biden as Prez.

    5. A do-over is not realistic in my humble opinion, but if that’s what the powers that be want, it sounds fair enough. I just don’t know if it’s practical.

    6. Having the House decide sounds fair enough — is that what the Constitution requires if an ineligible person holds most of the Electors — I honestly do not know — but someone here might and could help us out on this.

    7. On Condi doing the investigation and doing it right now I think you are incorrect about that. She would be the ideal person, because of the very practical reason that she could get to the real data faster and cheaper than any other American — a lot of it is right there in her office — the State Department after all must have some idea of who the US citizens are — if they don’t who would?

    8. She doesn’t have to be the final word. She could just go get the data. The data speaks for itself. Who should it speak to?

    9. I’m for the Electoral College as who it should speak to. Another poster on this site put the idea into my head that it’s only in places like Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan that the Courts play a very active role in saying who can and who cannot run for office. Article I section 5, which is sort of parallel to the present case, plus Article II about the Electoral College — my sense is that the intent of the Founders was that certain political questions are non-justiciable — that means that it’s not our style of government to have Courts decide them — our style is that some things must be wholly decided in a single branch, and not a process of checks and balances between branches, which could easily turn into a toxic feedback loop (like in Pakistan).

    10. One final possibility is that come Inauguration Day, George W Bush and Dick Cheney could both resign a few hours before noon, Nancy Pelosi could step up as next in line. She would then be President by Constitutional succession. She would then be inaugurated simply by taking the Oath of Office as President. I don’t know how the Vice Presidency would be filled, possibly by appointment by the President, possibly by having the next in of succession fleet up with the Speaker of the House, or possibly by election by the House.

    11. The whole idea of the Obama Campaign was change — big change. That’s the kind of situation where no doubt can be allowed to remain about the lawfulness of the President — whether or not for example he might be a foreigner, or otherwise ineligible under our Constitution. This matter would not go away. It would grow if any doubt remained on Inauguration Day.

    12. That’s why Condi Rice needs to step in and get the real facts now. She should be going to the Federal Courts to get court orders that compel Obama to cooperate fully, to be deposed under oath, to turn over every scrap of paper he has relating to this matter, to appear before a Grand Jury if necessary. I agree with you that his stonewalling is very dumb, very destructive, if not criminal. I think the matter can be taken out of his hands — where’s the Attorney General while all this is happening? He and Condi should be working all out to get the facts on the table the the Electors can do the right thing — whatever that thing may be.

    Eigernorthface approved this message 20 Nov 2008 1647 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 20, 2008 04:50 PM

    Re-posted to Berg case thread at 20 Nov 08 1700 hrs EST

69. Eigernorthface - November 20, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Danney: Here’s another re-post of a note I put up on the Keyes thread today:

    1. Obama either does or does not have any paperwork that would be helpful beyond what he has already provided. I suspect he does not.

    2. Some Department of the U.S. government, perhaps State, perhaps Justice either does or does not have an official governmental interest in finding out where Obama was born, where he travelled, and on what passports, and at what ages. I suspect there is at least one Department that has such an official interest, probably two.

    3. A subpoena either can or cannot be issued to compel Obama to show all that he can show to shed light on these matters. I suspect a subpoena could be issued if anybody in an official position gave a rat’s ass about getting to the facts in this matter.

    4. In the absence of laying the groundwork by a careful and timely investigation, the Electors will or will not be groping blindly in the dark to do the right thing. I suspect that we are a reactive nation not a proactive nation — Kattrina has to hit first, then two years later we begin to respond, so I think the Electors will be groping blindly in the dark wanting to do “right” but having no clue as to what that might be, and no way to get a clue, and no time to get a clue — like the AG and Secretary of State have ways and time now.

    5. After Obama’s inauguration this whole issue either will or will not just blow over. I suspect it will not — every order he gives will be legally questioned, every Bill he signs. If Obama is a foreigner then he can never legally be President. The cost-sparing thing would be to find out one way or the other before he is installed in Office.

    6. Berg and Keyes either do or do not have the clout and the right to get the job done. I suspect that even if they got together in a single lawsuit, the suit would be barred by the doctrine of the non-justiciable political question, the Supreme Court would bag out just like State and Justice are doing now.

    7. The American people either give a rat’s ass about getting this right or they don’t. I suspect they don’t — they may be a few dozen bloggers out there in cyberspace who really care one way or the other, but that’s it. Well over 99.99% don’t care. They are busy trying to cope with a severe recession, put food on the table, pay the rent, or the mortgage. They hope that maybe Obama could bring about a “change” — maybe they could get something out of it. They are fatalistic, disconnected, alienated, cynical, mentally inert, intellectually asleep, civically AWOL — they just don’t know/don’t care (DKDC the new societal modality).

    8. Historians either will or will not realize that the “troubles” in the Obama Administration could have been avoided by certain government officials doing their obvious duty — a timely and proactive investigative process laying the groundwork for a sure and certain outcome from the Electoral College proceedings. I suspect that historians will twig to this point, sometime around 2050 — they will start to write papers about it, maybe even books, or doctoral dissertations. To the ones who say rational things at that time — my hat’s off to them .. better late than never, I guess.

    The message was approved by Eigernorthface 20 November 2008 2005 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 20, 2008 08:08 EST

    Re-post at 2015 hrs EST on Berg v Obama thread

70. Danney - November 21, 2008 at 7:45 am

    A letter of request to Orly Taitz who represents Dr. Alan Keys.

    Orly Taitz Esq. (SBN 223433)

    26302 La Paz

    Mission Viejo Ca 92691

    Telephone (949) 683-5411

    Facsimile: (949) 586-8110

    Re: Joining of case (08-4340) Berg vs. Obama, US Supreme Court, Writ of Certiorari pending.

    Attorney Orly Taitz,

    I respect Dr. Alan Keyes decision to request and pursue a writ of mandate (writ of mandamus) California Supreme Court, my wish is for success. I highly honor Dr. Keyes as a patriot and with service as ambassador.

    As a respected jurist sir, you understand the conditions and legal procedures most likely will extend passed Mr. Obama taking the oath of office January of next year, hopefully not. The tragedy if this occurs would be most devastating to our nation much more then if constitutionally disqualified by Supreme Court judicial action.

    My request, please consider urging Dr. Alan Keyes to join in the case with Philip J. Berg (Berg vs. Obama case 08-4340) as Attorney Berg may have an uphill clime being case dismissal due to lack of “standing” by Judge Surrick. As Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. stated “hogwash” I soundly agree with Dr. Vieira’s assessment.

    Key reasons for joining case

    Dr. Keyes joining in effort of case clearly demonstrates remedial damages being a candidate and does have “standing” under Article 3 section 2 clause 1 US Constitution to include 3 judicial test .

    Being this case is becoming highly publicized (86,000,000 plus hits on site http://www.obamacrimes.com, full page add Washington Times, numerous blogs, http://www.youtube.com , Fox news and much more) would aid Dr. Keyes in future candidacy.

    Dr. Keyes recognized by aiding the effort and heading off possible constitutional crises.

    Thanks for your response

    Respectfully

    Signature.

71. Eigernorthface - November 21, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Re Letter to Orly Taitz:

    I like it.

    It’s addressed to the right person.

    It says the right things.

    It provides good reasons and motivations.

    If they see the light — then there could be more light.

    I still think the judicial route is not the best.

    If the Supremes grant cert on 1 Dec or shortly thereafter, and hear Berg on the merits of his standing case sometime in January, and remand the case back to Judge Surrick, sometime in February, then I think Surrick will say “Yea, OK he’s got standing, but this is a non-justiciable political question, case dismissed (again) — go away little man, see what the Supremes say now”.

    Victory is the ball. You have to keep you eye on the ball.

    The facts are 1000 times stronger than anything else that might affect this case. Therefore getting the facts by a proper, thorough, and timely investigation is the key to victory.

    Who could do that? Condi Rice and AG Mukasey. They are the one’s who could get the facts, using adminstrative orders, Grand Juries, Subpoenas, the FBI, State Department Intelligence, and US Diplomats overseas.

    So, what needs to happen is that the fact getters need to be petitioned (massively) to go get the facts, and have them ready in case the Electoral College is interested in the facts.

    There will be a few electors who probably will care whether or not the person declared the winner is in fact eligible to be President. Somebody in that College — which will be chaired by the President of the Senate will say “Well are there any facts available on this matter?”

    If Condi and Mukasey have done there jobs, there will be. If not, the electors will be groping blindly in the dark, with no time and no resources, no talent, and no personnel to get the facts.

    So they will have to operate without facts. Maybe the DNC can come in and show the COLB, or maybe just send it to the Electors, via the internet.

    We will make do with whatever is possible.

    But the issue won’t go away. If Obama and Biden are inaugurated, then Biden would take over if Obama is later shown to be ineligible — that is clear in the Constitution. A lot of people think Joe Biden would make a wonderful President.

    So if Obama slides in because nobody got the data together in time to prevent it, he would be subject to impeachment from day one, or as soon as the facts emerge clearly — and there would be plenty of motivation to go ahead and remove him from office, if that means Joe Biden steps up.

    I don’t have any political goals in this matter. My only goal is the orderly conduct of the Federal government. That is best served by a fully informed Electoral College, so the right person gets inaugurated in the first place, and we start on January 20 2009 with a secure and well-founded new administration. Most of G.W. Bush’s cabinet would probably have to stay for 90 days, until their replacements could be found and cleared and confirmed. No big deal on that.

    What would it cost Condi and Mukasey to just go get the facts now? Very little. Almost nothing. If the facts show that Obama is a US citizen, what would become of the investigative file? Nothing at all, it would go to the Archives. It would just say the same thing that is officially presumed to be true — so it has no surprize value — no real information content — at least nothing new that makes a difference.

    The electors may or may not want to see the file. They may just read an Executive Summary — “Investigation was done by Sect’y State and AG and concludes that Obama is eligible”. They wouldn’t get eyestrain reading such an executuive summary — they wouldn’t have to set up special reading rooms. That could go on a 3 by 5 card. They could read it in less than 10 seconds.

    As between the people who are petitioning for a full and fair investigation and Condi Rice (+the AG), who has got the problem? Are the petitoners all wearing little tin hats? Or, are the powers that be grossly and outrageously derelict in their obvious duty?

    It comes down to a question of balance of costs and balance of harms — you remember that from tort law right. The party with the least harm and the lowest costs is the one who should alter their conduct — in other words Condi and Mukasey go do the investigation, don’t just sit there, hoping it all blows over, or that none of the Electors will care.

    Eigernorthface approved this message 21 Nov 2008 11:18 EST

72. Eigernorthface - November 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Danney — there’s a fellow named Strauss posting on the Keyes thread who may have some interesting ideas. Here is my response to his most recond posts:

    Having served as an international lawyer for the Navy in the Philippines and in Africa, I agree with your assessment of the “evidence” from Kenya completely. Foreign witnesses, interrogated unskillfully, by reporters hoping to get a sensational scoop have no value in this matter. I count the grandmother’s evidence at nought.

    I have repeatedly said I think there is a better than 50% chance Obama was born in Hawai’i. You tell me that officials there have looked at the vault records and confirm that the COLB is substantively accurate — OK I accept that.

    When I was 20 years old, I knew better than to travel on a foreign passport and offer myself as an Indonesian. I knew that would constitute an abandonment of my American citizenship.

    At the minimum Mr. Strauss I think you would have to agree it constitutes a “false official statement”.

    Berg tells us that a person doing such an act — going to Pakistan and entering on an Indonesian passport can restore their US citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance. That sounds right. Berg, may be a little whacky, but he was the Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, so he probably knows how to find the law.

    So then, it’s a matter of fact. Did Obama at any time after his visit to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport take the Oath of Allegiance? It’s a “yes” or “no” question.

    Should Condi answer it, or should I? Well, Condi has the data. She’s not an investigator, but she has hundreds of investigators working for her at the State Department. She could get more from Mukasey and the FBI. I, on the other hand have no duty, no organization, no access to the data, no resources. So, I say Condi and Mukasey should do the job.

    Now you tell me that the electors don’t actually meet in the Congress — they just sort of send in their votes after meeting in the states. Well then I guess it’s pretty hopeless to expect them to do any investigation, right?

    The business of the Oath of Allegiance is, perhaps a technicality. But when the Commandeer in Chief orders men into battle, that just based a technicality too — the mere technicality that he happens to be the Commander in Chief, right?

    I have never said that Obama offerred himslf as a candidate, knowing that he was not an American. As you say, that would be a crime. It would require criminal mens rea. I have have said that Obama’s early life was a kaliedoscope of happenstance — no sort of conspiracy — more like a lotto ball in the plexiglas airbox. So I’m not suggesting criminal mens rea.

    But I think Berg may have the technicality right — Obama is not an American under the law.

    Even if this mattered to the electors, they will be in no position to do anything about it.

    But Condi and Mukasey right now are in a position to find out. Start here “Barack, after you travelled to Pakistan, did you ever take the oath of allegiance to restore your US citizenship, and if so where di you do that?”

    Then go here: “Hello, Clerk of Court, would you please check the historical files of your Court (or Consulate, or Legation) to see if Barack Obama aka any of his other half dozen names, ever took the Oath of Allegiance there? He says he did, and approximately on this date “……”

    It’s a question of authority, I just don’t have the authority to get the answers. Condi and Mukasey do (he has a Deputy by the way, in case he’s feeling ill or infirm, which I understand he’s not).

    The officials have the authority, the access, the position, and the resources. If I had these things, I would get the job done in 72 hours or less — no persons in Kenya would be involved — this is simple records check — a few phone calls, and somebody goes and looks in a file — an American file — no muss, no fuss, no bother — no drama for Obama.

    Any organization that would have someone like me for a member, I don’t know that I could join. Not only do I not have an organization, I’m not a member of any organization, church, political party, or even local Bar Association. The only memberships I have are in the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court and a few Federal and Circuit Courts, and COMA. Sort of a non-joiner. When I put my little tinfoil hat on, I do it all by myself.

    I’m looking for the low energy path here — the low cost low conflict path. Just ask the right fact getters to get the facts and do it now while it’s timely and cost sparing. Berg is either right, or he’s not about the expatriation issue.

    The problem with letting it slide is that it won’t stay slid. It will rattle around in the Courts until somebody gets to the bottom of it. If Berg has the law wrong, now would be a good time to point that out. If Berg’s facts are mistaken, now would be a good time to show that.

    Let’s start with Obama born in Hawai’i. Let’s proceed to Obama has never had any mens rea to commit a crime by falsely offering himself as an candidate for any office for which he is ineligible. With those matters behind us, let us seek rational dialogue, and a sensible course of conduct — Mr. Strauss you seem like a rational enough guy – how about it?

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 21 Nov 2008 1747 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 21, 2008 05:51 PM

    Re-posted to Berg v Obama thread at 21 Nov 08 1758 hrs EST

73. Danney - November 21, 2008 at 6:46 pm

    Eigernorthface,

    I have several reasons for addressing the issue with this letter. I do highly agree with you on the course to take and that is a passionate position pursued. This I will continue.

    The reasons for the letter are first in my study I am graded on letters such as this. If by chance my request is honored so much the better. Thanks for your suggestion on addition of Dr. Keyes to join would strengthen the case.

    I have not lost focus on your idea to compel Secretary Rice. I continue to get request and have modified the letter addressed to her as you suggested as well.

    It is also good to leave no stone unturned as an addition my studies requirement is met.

74. Eigernorthface - November 22, 2008 at 12:24 am

    Danney: Be sure to include in your study the fact that today I changed my mind about the Berg and Keyes cases. The only part of either of those cases that ever seemed meritorious was the part about the expatriation by use of the Indonesian passport in 1981. This Strauss person on the Keyes site gave me a little education on that subject, so now knowing better, I choose a better course of conduct. When my understanding of the facts changes, I change my mind. When my mind changes, what I do changes. It’s a sort of feedback process with reality, I call it learning, the thing that life is for (per Joni).

    Anyhow here’s what Strauss said and where I come out:

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

    It says (in part):

    Quotes:

    POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

    Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

    1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

    2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

    3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

    4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

    5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

    6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

    7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

    ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

    As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

    DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE

    In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:

    1. is naturalized in a foreign country;

    2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;

    3. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or

    4. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,

    and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.

    End quote:

    Two observations. Travel on a foreign passport is not listed, and “the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” Oh, and the SC has ruled in another case, that when parents make a decision to give up citizenship for their children, it does not remove US citizenship.

    Try another way.

    Re: Now you tell me that the electors don’t actually meet in the Congress — they just sort of send in their votes after meeting in the states. Well then I guess it’s pretty hopeless to expect them to do any investigation, right?

    That’s right as far as the electors are concerned. You could do the investigation for them and send them the data. I believe that their names are usually published, but you have to do the research in each of the states (and DC and Puerto Rico).

    Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 08:38 PM

    ——————————————————————————–

    Re: “The business of the Oath of Allegiance is, perhaps a technicality.”

    No, I think it is important. If you are saying that if a person who was, say, 34 years old, and took the oath of allegiance to the constitution was breaking that oath because he knew that he was too young to be president, I’m not sure I go along.

    It seems a little like the presidents who took oaths to support the constitution back during the time of prohibition (which was a constitutional amendment remember?) and yet they took drinks.

    You recall that the oath says that the president must swear:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    That means he has to preserve the constitution and protect it – but where does it say obey it?

    In any case, we are talking theory. There is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or lost his citizenship.

    Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 08:50 PM

    ——————————————————————————–

    Re: “Any organization that would have someone like me for a member, I don’t know that I could join.”

    That’s Groucho’s joke. “I wouldn’t be a member of any organization that would accept me as a member.”

    Okay, you need not join. But if what you want to get done is to get done, then there should be an organization. If not, well, I’m not sorry. But, as I said before, I do welcome being proved wrong. PROVED.

    Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 09:04 PM

    ——————————————————————————–

    Re: I think that there’s a better than 50% chance that he was actually born in Hawai’i. That’s not enough to make him a natural born citizen. The rules in Hawai’i in 1961 were not the same as the rules in El Paso today. The mother would have to meet a certain residency requirement — a certain amount of time that she was a resident in the US prior to the birth for Obama to automatically become a US citizen just by being born in Hawai’i in 1961.”

    Re born in the USA and not a citizen. Sorry, all wrong. If he was born in the USA, he is a citizen and natural born. Anyone born in the USA is a citizen except for a few minor exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America

    Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 09:10 PM

    ——————————————————————————–

    To: nickf — Who it goes to if not Obama depends entirely on when the proof comes in that Obama is not qualified (if it does). Before the inauguration — it’s anybody’s guess — I have no idea — the Electors or the House would get to pick somebody I think. After the inauguration, it would go to Biden. It’s academic how Obama might be characterized in the interim (between the inauguration and the discovery of ineligibility), but for the sake of argument, I think your idea is right, but academic — it’s like Aquinas and the Angels and the pin.

    To Mr Strauss: I appreciate that Obama could not lose his citizenship by being dragged off to Indonesia by his mother. It would be assumed that a minor did not intend the loss of his US citizenship, with or without any sort of Oath later on.

    I’m not sure that you are right about the Hawai’i birth being disposative. Berg has some issues, he put in his complaint, he talks about what the rules were in Hawai’i in 1961, and how the mother may not have met the residency requirements for the birth to create an automatic US citizen. I don’t know. I’ll accept provisionally what you say about this, but keep an eye on what Berg says as well. The facts in this case are very complex, the father being Kenyan, the mother being a globetrotting traveller like anyone could see who followed her story. I would need to hear from an expert in Hawai’i law, before I could fully and unconditionally agree with you on this point.

    The tough issue is whether a 20 year old using an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan has done an act that speaks for itself as a statement that renounces his US citizenship.

    I read the law you sent me very carefully, and closely, and try to figure out its spirit — the general intent it embodies. Then I combine that with the ancient rule propounded by Blackstone which is that: “The law abhors a forfeiture”.

    That seems to be the reason why the conditions for loss of US citizenship are drafted so narrowly, so specifically, not the kind of thing to be inferred from implicit possibilities, but the kind of thing that must be explicit, crystal clear at the time of its occurance.

    It wasn’t like that when Obama went to Pakistan in 1981. Things were not always crystal clear for me when I was 20 years old — maybe they weren’t for Barack either. So inferring some sort of massive forfeiture on him based on what appears to be arguably the objective intent of his conduct, may not be fair.

    Well, I am fair. So, you’ve convinced me. I will cease and desist from asking Condi Rice or AG Mukasey to conduct rigorous investigations. As this matter is laid to rest in my mind, it’s clear that the DNC and Obama and the FEC have failed to take care that these considerations be made plain so Americans can rest easy in their hearts about them.

    The cases may continue to moil, wrangle, and churn up some dust and heat, but not with my approval or support. The whole idea of asking questions, is to get answers. When satisfactory answers come back, the question is put to rest. The questing process is more like an invitation to receive information than like a challenge to a fight. I don’t issue counterfeit invitations. If I say I’m open to new knowledge — I actually am.

    So, that’s it, I’m wiser now, thanks!

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 22 November 2008 0002 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 22, 2008 12:10 AM

    Re-posted to Berg v Obama thread at 22 November, 2008 0020 hrs EST

75. Danney - November 22, 2008 at 6:33 am

    I conclude as well the use of Indonesian passport arguably is an act of renunciation or acceptance of fact renounced under parental authority.

    He is entitled to gain back his citizenship Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). All is well if proven that he did regain his citizenship.

76. Eigernorthface - November 22, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Danney — Actually Strauss makes a stronger point even than that — Obama never lost his US citizenship — lack of voluntariness — the INA rules are quite clear — there must be explicit and crystal clear voluntariness — not just an act that seems inconsistent with US citizenship. Here’s my latest message to Strauss, but skip over to the Keyes thread and read the law that Strauss posted for me — the detailed INA rules.

    Fair-er my God to thee … Fair … er .. to Thee! I’m with that. Socrates used to say he wanted to become more filled with the spirit of Justice every day — such was the proper progress of a human life — John Bunyan might say a pilgrim’s progress, Chaucer might call it our journey to Canterbury.

    On legacy admissions, I approve of them under two conditions. 1. They must result in major gifts to the College or University and 2. The student getting admitted that way has to meet the minimum standards for admission. By letting that student in, 100 other students are paid for. The impact on educational mission is a net positive, so, as a policy matter, it’s not great policy, but it’s good enough policy.

    On Obama and his opponents — I think he’s head and shoulders above them, literally and figuratively. He’s got AKGRET (sounds like accurate — my own acronym to describe his unique selling proposition which in an Uncanny Knack for Getting it Right Every Time AKGRET — rhymes with accurate).

    On the Secretary of the Treasury appointment — it’s a display of Obama’s AKGRET trait. He keeps up that way, he can make the country better, maybe heal the world.

    Yes, Hawai’i is part of USA. Yes, Federal law applies. But it’s the Federal law that applied in 1961 in Hawai’i that counts, not the Federal law that applies in El Paso today. If, under Federal law in 1961 in Hawai’i the parent giving birth had to meet a residency requirement for the birth to give rise to an automatic US citizen, then that’s the law that counts. If you could assure me that Federal law in every state in 1961 said that any baby (apart from the rare exceptions you mentioned) born in that state became a US citizen, then that whole line of reasoning in the Berg complaint would be decisively exploded — poof! it’s gone. That’s what’s needed — erroneous ideas should be decisively put out of their misery, that way we can know the truth and be free and light in our hearts.

    My consternation and the DNC abides, in spite of my renewed endeavor to be ever more fair and just. They should have figured this out a year ago, written detailed reports on it, and filed them with the Court on the same day that Berg and Keyes and whoever else filed their cases. “Be Prepared” — the boy scout thing — how dumb would the DNC have to be to not anticipate this as an issue, and do some detailed work, like you have done Mr. Strauss to head it (and me) off. I look forward to the day that I can have positive feelings about the DNC, and their strategic insight and managerial leadership.

    Your basic argument is totally right. The spirit of the law is to avoid a forfeiture. In this case we are talking about a 20 year old kid raised in Indonesia — what does he know about passports and expatriation – nothing right? So what could he intend? Nothing. So did he explicitely and voluntarily give up his citizenship? No. So did he give it up at all — no under the law — if the Hawai’i birth thing goes as you say it does, which I have no reason to doubt at this point, although the language in the Berg complaint still needs to be analysed and refuted in my humble opinion — the residency rules that Berg claims applied at that time in that place.

    So if he had it and did not give it up, what Oath is required? None. In any case the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath that Obama took when joining the US Senate are substantively similar. If content inferred from actions would be good enough to put him out of his citizenship, then the same reasoning could put him back in. Any fairminded person I think would see that by taking the Oath required to assume a seat in the U.S. Senate Obama was implicitely asserting his continuing citizenship in and allegiance to the USA. But that argument is not necessary, if what you’ve told me is true — he never lost it — no voluntariness.

    We, I think agree that the Africa testimony is pure mumbo-jumbo, and goes right in the trash. It’s not a question of intending to lie. It’s more a question of being raised in a culture in which there simply is no concept of an “objective truth” — truth that is somehow different from who is asking the question and what is their power status relative to the interrogatee, and what’s the chance of getting a protein bisquit out of this transaction before sundown. I served in Oman East Africa, for the Navy, as a lawyer — I understand Protein Bisquit Speech (PBS for a Brave New World).

    I still care about the issue, but I’m satisfied. I was sure this question was going to turn on the facts of the case — hence my letter to Condi Rice to go get the facts. Now I find that actually the case turns on the law, as you’ve shown it to me. Lord Keynes said it best “When the facts change, I change my mind … what do you do?”

    Again, thanks! It’s people with a sense of detail and precise thought that make America work. We don’t let things slide, we chase them down, and find out what’s right. Obama looks right, so my hat’s off to smrstrauss for the energy given and the information and value added.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 22 November 2008, 1226 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 22, 2008 12:31 PM

    Re-posted on Berg v Obama thread at November 22, 2008 1240 hrs EST

77. Danney - November 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Eigernothface, smrstrauss,

    I had a great conversation with an attorney today. She said, using my own words, follow intent, who is Berg, Martin and Keyes and what do they hope to accomplish? Yes they claim to be great patriots and stand for the constitution. But what really is the hidden agenda? Why not keep things quiet? If you are planning an attack do you broadcast your plan? Would you not think they are planning a future with political aspirations? If they loose and most likely they may they gain because emotions play on the public. Great conversation and opened my eyes a bit.

    She said clearly Obama with his resources will have no problem knowing already what they have exposed in the open.

78. Danney - November 23, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    This too was pondered. I listen to Rush once and a while sometimes I think he has too big of an ego but he makes since. I asked a friend that is a big fan. What did Rush have to say about Berg vs Obama? He said Rush mentioned it briefly saying it did not clear the threshold of his stink test meaning he has a problem with it. I am sure with his opposition to Obama and this was something worth the effort he would be spending a lot of time with it.

79. Eigernorthface - November 23, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    To Danney — This is a response to Strauss posted on the Keyes thread a few minutes ago, I thought you might like to see it:

    To: Mr. Strauss:

    Yes, I know the reading room idea is not the law. I’m proposing it. Let’s make it the law.

    No it does not have to be the law for all past Presidents.

    Yes it’s Ok to make it the law for all future Presidents.

    Yes factual inquiries are made in the directions where there are factual questions, and not in directions where there are no factual questions.

    Why didn’t people want to know by the securest possible evidence where JFK was born? This is no deep mystery. He came from a big New England family, many of whom were present within a very short time after his birth. His mother and father were well known to the community. Same with FDR, same with George Washington.

    So your idea that if a detailed inquiry is appropriate for Obama, then it must have been appropriate for all prior Presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, all the way back, is mistaken — it’s not illegal for you to think that but it’s a mistake, it’s not logical.

    Detailed inquiries are made where detailed inquiries are called for. If they are not called for, they are not made.

    If they are made in the case of Obama, then basic fairness would suggest tnat they should be made in for all Presidents going forward from here. It’s not logical in every case, but it would be equitable. Once we decide we need to look into these things carefully for one fellow, then all the persons that come after should get the same scrutiny. Equal protection/Due process basic fairness it doesn’t matter how you write the brief just get the bottom line right. I was hell on my clerks — they had to make the law be whatever way I wanted it to be. Well we won most of our cases, so apparently they wrote good briefs.

    It wouldn’t even really have to be a law. Obama could just decide it was a rational and prudent thing to do, and just have it done by Executive Order. Order #1 — To clear away the bugaboo about me being a foreigner it is ordered that a reading room be set up in Hawai’i containing … etc … including my vault birth certificate … etc … etc … et cetera (like in the King and I with Yul Brenner and Julie Andrews).

    All sensible behavior by all human beings does not necessarily have to arise by compulsion of the law. Quote me if you like on that.

    Getting the information out there would be beneficial to USA. Presidents should seek to benefit USA. Therefore President Obama should get the information out there. This syllogism would be Barbara in the First Figure — see Aritotle.

    Being born in Hawai’i is the key that unlocks the Golden Door, so if he’s got it, the Privacy Act can be waived. Just stop the tinfoil hat gang from creating mischief in the courts that does nobody any good and that could get complicated and do some real harm.

    The stories about the Kenya visit I think have been correctly analysed by Strauss (your own self), and surely they are Berg’s and Corsi’s inventions with no plausible basis in fact. None of that material has to be addressed in the reading room or anywhere else as far as I’m concerned. A global chase after hearsay-based red herrings is no part of our tradition, and this is not a good time to begin a new tradition in that direction. But if we are just talking about waiving the Privacy Act, so we can have a low-conflict no drama inauguration, I don’t see why Obama would have to be legally compelled to get that done — he could just do it. It’s not like he’s giving up any of his Presidential powers. It would not affect the Office of the Presidency one bit. It would just be a case of one President being compliant with the wishes of the People to be fully assured of his citizenship — not a big deal — unless somebody makes it a big deal. Obama could take the wind out of Berg and Keyes with little effort, and he should do so, in my humble opinion.

    For the conspiracy theorists I offer this modest proposal. A national tinfoil hat making contest (I will supply origami diagrams). The winning hat judged by a panel of persons who have been probed by aliens aboard their spacecraft should have all necessary antennae and force field projector cones. The winner gets an “All Access Pass” to area 51, and this includes the right to take samples of any remains of aliens found in underground storage facilities at Area 51.

    I’m not a big believer in secrets — unless they are about special forces operations that are ongoing, or covert intelligence operatives in the field and active, or who have recently been active and run agents abroad.

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I’m not saying that Berg and Keyes are bad people. But in this case they would have nothing to work with if the Obama legal team would find a way to just get the documents out there where folks can see them.

    Lawyers always seem to find ways to keep each other employed, and the chalk it up to high moral purpose or preserving the law. But to ordinary folks it looks like gratuitous vexaciousness and contrariness.

    Let us not be contrary. The best way is just agree with my rational suggestions — be affable, not obtuse. Reason is the light. Using it makes the world brighter.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 23 November 2008, 2120 hrs EST

    Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 23, 2008 09:27 PM

    Re-Posted to Berg v Obama thread at 23 November 2008 2132 hrs EST

80. Harry Thompson - November 24, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    I looks to me like, if you have the right lawyers, you can get by with anything in the United States. Obama should produce information requested or be tried for fraud or pergery. He proved that he has something to hide, or he would have immediately produced evidence requested.

81. Harry Thompson - November 24, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    I looks to me like, if you have the right lawyers, you can get by with anything in the United States. Obama should produce information requested or be tried for fraud or pergery. He proved that he has something to hide, or he would have immediately produced evidence requested.

82. Danney - November 24, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Light on the subject in question yes leaves little room to vex or annoy. Most buy into a viewpoint. Either object reason is lost for the satisfaction of positioning, gratification of ego, emotion or objectivity stand to question intention.

    It is much easier to follow with blinds then with examining spectacles. Obviously the election heavily hinged on this. Truth is always a hard subject, to see the truth leave no room for flawed concepts. The truth veiled finds those willing to see only the mask with no interest to remove that of which hides.

    The task has two sides. It must defend the truth at time and other defend the non truth. You stand accused before a panel of piers. I chose some wisely the opposition chose some wisely. The task to unveil the truth or to paint the veil to hide the truth. If the veil is removed then makes increasing difficulty to cast a doubt.

83. Eigernorthface - November 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    I find that the Hawai’i authorities say they have gone back into the vault and examined Obama’s original vault long form birth certificate, and that it is substantively consistent with the COLB which we have seen circulating about on the internet, and that Obama was indedd born in Hawai’i and not somewhere else.

    Weighing that evidence is fairly easy. What chance is there that very heavy penalties would come down on the Hawai’i authorities if they were found to be lying about something like that. I think 100% chance, right?

    Those authorities allege that there is a long form vault copy and that they have seen it. How risky would it be for them to declare such a thing exists, if it does not exist? Very risky, right. Somebody might come out with a subpoena, or Obama might waive his Privacy Act rights, all kinds of things could happen that would put the Hawai’i authorities in the path of big trouble if they said they had seen and verified and were correctly relaying the substance of a document that did not exist.

    Do bureaucrats ordinarily plunge themselves and their careers into huge risks for the sake of people they don’t know? I think not.

    If Obama was in fact born in Hawai’i is there anything in the Berg or Keyes complaints that would constitute an ex-patriation?

    Not according to the INA law (previously posted by Strauss and by me). That law makes it extremely difficult to expatriate oneself. There’s a very short list of very specific things and they all have to be accompanied by specific intent that is explicit and on the record, not just implied or implicit.

    If Obama never lost his citizenship by his travels to Pakistan on and Indonesian passport at age 20, then he never need to take the Oath of Allegiance to recalim his citizenship which was never lost.

    If he was born in Hawai’i, which in 1961 was a state, just like any other state, then he was a natural born citizen. The mother’s residency is not relevant — those rules only apply if the baby is born outside the USA, but Hawai’i was inside the USA, so they don’t apply — it doesn’t matter where she lived before Obama was born, or for how long.

    Because the Berg and Keyes cases are totally devoid of merit, and because my research into the law and my analysis revealed that to me, I withdrew my approval and support from those cases about a week ago.

    Rational people do not persist on a path that is shown to be without merit. Only people whose minds simply cannot be affected by the facts continue to believe things that the facts strongly suggest are not true. When the facts change, I change my mind. I once thought the Berg and Keyes cases were potentially valid. Now the facts have changed, so I don’t think those cases are potentially valid — I think they are clearly invalid and unworthy of my support.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 November 2008, 1210 hrs EST

84. Mike Miller - November 25, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    I don’t even have to see it myself. If the Supreme Court looked at the long form birth certificate and said he was born on Hawaian soil, that would be good enough for me. Unfortunately, there have been too many lies and too many documents withheld to take it for granted even if some folks in Hawaii say it’s so. Obana’s shady past and very rich friends make it entirely possible for him to buy what he wants if that’s possible.

85. Danney - November 25, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Eigernorthface,

    I agree that Keyes, Berg and Martin have a motive be it for political or not. There is something compelling them on above the constitutional adherents claimed. Fame or gain with a popular movement, who knows?

    Questions for you as I do highly respect and appreciate your opinion.

    If indeed vexatious litigation (Pearson v. Chung) or could be. Why did Judge Surrick make no mention in his dismissal? I would ponder, do please correct me if I am wrong, would be an easier rout on merit issue. In case Pearson v. Chung yes ridicules damage claims but how much more ridicules to ask removal, loss of campaign donation mounting to $600million plus and for disenfranchisement for those who voted for presidential candidate? Being the precedent case I believe they would fear heavy sanctions against Berg, Keyes and Martin.

    If indeed that be the case. There is a conference of SCOTUS judges going on Dec.5. Would they not look first and weigh in on merit? Seems the importance factor would address possible merit before hand.

    I still do not understand if the question be answered simply by product of proof, possible sanction action against accusers and a wash of public rumor. Why has that not been done in light not still given darkness or fog?

    I was reading my last comments forgive that obviously the Hennessy Ellipse my brother sent me I had a bit to much and that was speaking.

86. Eigernorthface - November 25, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Surrick’s dismissal was right. Vexacitous litigation is a minor issue. The Constitutional issue are 1. Standing and 2 Political Question (Non-justiciable). The judge had sense enougn to know this was not a minior case of piddling consequence, so he didn’t not dismiss it as a judge might dismiss a minor case of piddling consequence. He picked out a Constitutional basis. He had 2 available. He still has one left. The second is actually stronger than the first.

    Even if Berg somehow has standing his case might still be non-justiciable because it’s a “political question” per the US Constitution.

    And my own personal opinion is that even if it was tried on its merits in the District Court it would fail because it lacks merit.

    If I thought the case had merit, I would want to see it tried. The law does not support Berg’s claims or Keyes’ claims.

    So, to my way of thinking these are junk cases, not worth trying.

    The Supremes I think will figure this out on December 5th or whenever. They will deny Certiorari as well they should.

    We put this in the junk pile. That’s the right place for it in my humble opinion.

    Don’t expect that I will keep responding on this issue.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 Nov 2008 2223 hrs EST

87. Danney - November 25, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    I see your point it was again well explained. Thanks to Mr. Strauss as well as clearly he pointed out iron clad rejection to claim of citizenship or non-citizenship. I have learned most important lessons.

    Lessons learned

    Do not to be so quick to jump on a band wagon as the band maybe playing the wrong song.

    Always question intention even given I support a possible outcome.

    Do the homework and that I have prided myself in but in this case was lacking a bit.

    Think as if I was defending this case.

    This was a very good discussion I hope to be invited to more. I will conclude my project after case closed and work an analogy from there.

    Thanks again I have a heads up but who knows what possible can transpire.

88. Eigernorthface - November 26, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Good working with you Danney. You learned the same lesson I did, so we learned together. When everything looks like it’s going one way, a lot of times its actually going the other way. Homework is the right idea. You do it with diligence, and you just keep doing it, and if you find while you’re doing it, that everything that seemed one way is actually a different way — that’s the biggest payoff you can get from doing homework diligently — you get saved from making a mistake — you learn something new, like I did, like you did, in our analysis — with the help of Strauss — of this complex matter. Our hats are off to Strauss, and our respect as colleagues in study abides.

    This message was approved by Eigernorthface 26 November 2008, 1650 hrs EST

89. Danney - November 26, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Eigernorthface,

    Good working with you as well. Thanks again. Please do inform me of any other discussions going on different subjects I do enjoy your incite and hope to add as well.

90. Danney - November 27, 2008 at 5:58 am

    Happy Thanksgiving to all. Thank God we have a free country and can respectfully descent or concur. Let us always fight to keep it free.

91. justme - November 27, 2008 at 9:44 am

    “{Editorial Note: In a nation of 300 million people it is truly amazing — almost Twilight Zone like that only a few dozen people seem to care at all about this case.}”

    It is also amazing that only a handful of people have filed cases. There are many legal points that have not been covered.

92. Concerned - November 28, 2008 at 12:11 am

    …More than a handful of people care. So far there are 106,438 Total Signatures on this petition PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=81550

    Please sign it anyone who is concerned. I believe it was started about a week ago and already has over 100,000 signatures.

    Pass it on…

93. Ms. Prissy - November 30, 2008 at 12:05 am

    I say get on with your lives. President elect Obama is an American citizen and nothing can change that. As all of you are aware, anyone can file a law suit. I don’t think this case will be overturned on appeal.

94. Danney - November 30, 2008 at 2:50 am

    The People have the right to know. This is not just a country where leaders hide deep dark secrets when they not only can but should prove by the law of the land that they are eligible. No one should be above the law in any capacity. If we have to supply our proof in general applications how much more should the highest office be required.

    If it has not been done then who is to say that tyranny can not rule? If Obama is truly eligible under the constitution I respect his election even I profoundly disagree with his ways. My hope that the judicial contamination will be limited or not contaminated. But through the history of those of whom share Obama’s ideology great damage has been done. Legislation from the bench instead of properly done is rampant. The constitution gets in the way so it is circumvented.

    I do not blame The People who demand this. Even though it has been limited we still have the right to regress our grievances and be heard.

95. Danney - November 30, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Dr. Edwin Vieira PHD

    “Any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

    Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

    [i]f, 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 [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

    Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

    In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

    What are some of those consequences?

    First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

    Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

    Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

    [w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.

    Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

    Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

    Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

    Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

    Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

    The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

    Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

    Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.”

    © 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserve

96. Ed Finley - December 2, 2008 at 6:16 am

    Very simple…Obama allows the State of Hawaii to release his original, “long form” Birth Certificate. The “Certificate of Live Birth, that he supposedly released, besides being an obvious forgery, is NOT proof of Natural Born Citizenship, since this same said form can also be obtained by people born outside of the US and brought here and simply registered.

    WHAT IS HE HIDING??????

97. Danney - December 16, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Answer to my letter to Attorney Taitz.

    Dear Mr. Lawler,

    Our office recognizes your concern and we agree with Attorney Berg’s assessments as such we have been in communication and jointly support this effort.

    Our complaint has as well addressed with Attorney Bergs held the same concerns we have a joint statement with Attorney Berg held on December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club Conference where Attorney Taitz as Attorney Berg has addressed the public in this forum. This statement will explain better our position in detail.

    A video of this will be posted on Attorney Berg’s website at http://www.obamacrimes.com soon.

    Thanks for your concern

98. davboz - February 23, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    Don’t think it too deeply, people. It is simple. No proof of U.S. Birth, No legitimate Presidency. Simple as that. The first comment said it. If ALL are wronged, than ALL have standing, as opposed to NONE.

    Those who scoff it off are embarrassed to take up a cause that may be proven against.

    Stand up for the constitution. No matter how “silly” you think it may be. Imagine taking that stance on something that was popular and politically correct. Ignoring this issue is the measure of just that: our ignorance.

99. odanneyboy - March 10, 2009 at 11:37 pm

    It is being done so far many of our active and inactive duty members of the armed services have taken a stand. http://www.defendourfreedoms.us/ We have joined with Dr. Orly Taitz attorney and filed our own law suit dealing with the oath to defend our great constitution. Please feel free to join our effort.

100. Travel agents in Tirupur - May 19, 2009 at 9:02 am

     thanks for this great post…
     keep it up..

101. Danney - September 8, 2009 at 7:55 pm

     Big win in California Federal court. Judge Carter ruled ’standing’ issue moot Dr Orly Taitz ESQ and Keyes v Obama will carry hearings.

Leave a Reply