Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court

Separate conference for injunction scheduled a week AFTER conference on certiorari petition

Apparently, according to the docket for Philip Berg’s case at the U.S. Supreme Court, the application for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for certiorari has been “referred to the Court” by Justice Antonin Scalia, with a conference scheduled for Friday, January 16, 2009.

“I’m certainly encouraged,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m encouraged because it is still there.”

If the application for injunction truly is to be considered in conference by all nine Supreme Court Justices, it took a roundabout way to get there. It was filed and denied by Justice David Souter and refiled and once again denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy before making its way to Scalia’s lap.

Because the injunction asked either (1) for a stay of the electoral college vote on December 15, 2008 or (2) for a stay of the counting of the votes on January 8, 2009 and has not been scheduled for consideration until after the latter, however, I’m trying to wrap my head around exactly what this means. After all, with the conference itself is scheduled for eight days after the vote, wouldn’t the injunction application be considered moot, essentially outliving any practical application of adjudication? It certainly would if his petition for certiorari doesn’t receive the nod from four Justices a week earlier–therefore going the way of the applications for stay filed by Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski, both denied earlier in December–but aside from the petition for certiorari, the timing of the injunction itself seems like a poster child for the concept of mootness.

One of the exceptions made by the court when it comes to mootness is allowing for a moot proceeding to continue if doing so can help to avoid similar proceedings in the future. I was thinking, for a while, that the Donofrio-style applications for stay were being bounced around from Justice to Justice before finally being considered in conference in order to steadily rule out further applications by means of a process of elimination. Perhaps, by allowing Berg’s application to bounce around and finally be considered despite obvious mootness, the court is doing the same. I believe the legal phrase encompassing that process, coined in a case from the early 20th century, is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” This fits the questions put forth by Berg’s case, and by others. Hopefully this is not the case, and the Court has just been waiting for the right time to address the issue, rather than definitively show that they’d rather not address it at all.

In the meantime, the underlying petition for certiorari is scheduled for conference on Friday, January 9, 2009, and Berg seems to think that the selection of the date for conference could have something to do with the electoral votes being counted the day before.

“Until January 8, Obama is really nothing. He’s president-elect in name only, technically, until those votes are counted,” Berg said. “Seeing that we got to the Supreme Court before the other cases and are only now going to see conference weeks after they did, perhaps the timing is significant. I don’t know.”

Keep checking back here for more as things develop. Berg mentioned that there were other things in the works, but it was unclear whether he was talking about his case, or something else. I’ll do my best to answer those questions in the near future as well.

For a time-line of all materials related to Berg v. Obama, including the original story broken here at America’s Right, click HERE.

Share

Comments

  1. gailbullock says:

    In God We Trust!

    What’s the saying? You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

    Keep praying, folks! Nice work, Jeff! (And I feel you aced the exam!)

  2. toto says:

    This isn’t the first time I’ve said this, but it could be perhaps, that in fact, there is no issue until he is actually sworn in as president. The way I read the constitution, it says, no one can HOLD office……. At this point in time he doesn’t hold office, and won’t until January 20 at high noon. I’m hoping that is what the SCOTUS sees as well.

    Jeff, as you’ve mentioned before, no one has a problem if he is a natural born citizen or has citizenship, but why won’t he just prove it? Watch and see, he’s vacationing in Hawaii as I speak, want to bet a birth certificate comes out in about a week or so?

  3. Jackie Smith says:

    Jeff—-I don’t understand the conference scheduled for Jan. 9th and then denied on the same day for application and now another scheduled for Jan. 16th!!! Can this too be denied???

  4. bigal says:

    Jeff,

    Have you discussed any of this with your College Instructors? I value your opinions and evaluations, but I was wondering what individuals who have been following the Court for their lifetimes might think, not about only the merits of the various cases, but of the rationale behind the confusing (to me) actions of the Court.

    This guy takes the oath on Jan 20. Why would the legal profession allow all of this to fester this long?

  5. professor john schnitzal says:

    If Obama does become President. That will open the door for folks like Arnold S. to do the same (eliminating the requirement of being a “natural born citizen”). Even though I like Arnold, the constitution will never be the same.

  6. PatGund@gmail.com says:

    I’d suspect the “other plan” Berg has is 1:08-cv-01933-RWR BERG v. OBAMA, which wasn’t originally under seal and is now.

    BTW, according tp PACER, Third Circuit Court of Appeals docket #08-4443, Berg’s appeal of his original lawsuit dismissal, was denied on 22 December 2008.

    “Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    December 4, 2008
    Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
    ___________
    JUDGMENT
    ___________
    This cause came to be considered on a petition for writ of mandamus submitted on
    December 4, 2008. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby
    ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the petition for writ of mandamus
    be, and the same is, denied. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of the Court.”

  7. troubleshooter says:

    Great write…
    I have tried to cover up my congressman’s aide with the more active…people driven sites/blogg’s with hopes that some youngster aide would get a grasp of the sentiment coming from the hundreds of thousands of American’s ref the natural born calamity…
    BAGS OF MAIL:
    MAIL does make a difference…the late Senator Jessie Helms from time to time stated how the big bags of mail covering his doorway often helped him realize what was on the mind of his constituents! Who do I need to get permission from to copy Rick Saunders piece and the comments?
    While time allows: Let’s bury DC in snail mail…

  8. bob strauss says:

    Scalia looks to be interested in this case as well as the others by Donfrio,and Wrotnowsi. It was he who sent those cases to conference as well.Now all he has to do is convince the Justices that have been denying the case since the beginning.

  9. Author says:

    Jackie —-Go back and reread Jeff’s comments in the first 4 paragraph.

    There are 2, TWO, II cases that have been distributed.

    And yes they could be denied.

  10. GATOR-1 says:

    I tend to feel as TOTO does on this and that it isnt an issuse until after the fact. I also with Toto that he has been in Hawaii for quite some time and wouldnot be suprised to see a BC come out and I would add with his deceased G-Ma as a wittness.

    Just my thoughts,certainly not my hopes….Keep the Faith Folks.

  11. bob strauss says:

    Maybe “Obama” is enjoying his last few days of Freedom before the axe falls on this fraud. This issue is going to break wide open.Days are counting down,27 days to go.

  12. ted says:

    Dear Mr./Ms. Congressperson:

    Here is a decision tree for you -

    On Jan 8, you could request the simple common items of document of Obama’s eligibility, just to have done some due diligence and closed off these issues.

    If everything comes out clean, then everybody wins. Obama is proved eligible and you have been absolved of any carelessness in performance of your constitutional duty.

    The documents could be very damaging to Obama. In which case you will have done your country a great service and helped preserve the constitution. In addition, you will have shut down a traitor and a usurper.

    On Jan 8, you could blindly just accept all the electoral votes.

    On Jan 9, the US Supreme court will review this case. They will order up the due diligence that you refused to do.

    If everything comes out clean, then Obama wins. But you will look like you have shirked your duty and punted to the Supreme Court. This could not possibly work out well for you.

    The documents could be very damaging to Obama. In which case the Supreme Court will be the heroes for preserving the constitution and shutting down a traitor and usurper. In addition it will be extremely bad for you in that you will have been proven to have aided and abetted this poisoning of the USA from the inside. The repercussions against you will be very grave.

    Or, you could bet the Supreme Court will never take up these issues. You will also need to bet against the millions of Patriots in the US just letting this drop. You will have to depend on these same Patriots to roll over an play dead.

    Now – please – choose wisely.

  13. elguapo says:

    Where’s Corsi right now? Hawaii?

    Come on folks! We’re smarter than this. Are we really going to let Obama get away with his planned ascention without us even taking a good look at what’s written on his BC?

  14. ikeman says:

    I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts who swore to protect the Constitution will perjure himself by swearing in an impostor?

  15. Jet says:

    It sounds to me like the Supreme Court may be divided over the issue of Obama’s citizenship qualifications with some members like Souter, Kennedy and Ginsberg wanting to drop it while Scalia and Thomas want to push the issue. I’d love to be the fly on the wall listening to the justices arguing with each other over these cases.

  16. PatGund@gmail.com says:

    “Scalia looks to be interested in this case as well as the others by Donfrio,and Wrotnowsi. It was he who sent those cases to conference as well.Now all he has to do is convince the Justices that have been denying the case since the beginning.

    Yeah, but both of those cases were denied, 9-0. So even if Scalia is interested in them, he’s still voting for denial.

  17. Cris Ericson says:

    New! All NEW!!! NEWEST!

    SCOTUS
    OBAMA BIRTHGATE UPDATE!

    Ericson v. Obama

    New Issues!

    New Table of Authorities!

    New Questions to the Court!

    New Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts!

    New Conclusions!

    This is the one that will take away the keys to the White House!

    http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/12/918253.shtml

    Ericson v. Obama

  18. SeeksTruth says:

    Did anyone else know about this? Both candidates were at this Service Nation Summit on 9/11. And guess who chaired it? Darling Princess Caroline!

    http://www.bethechangeinc.org/servicenation/about_us/timeline

    Notice the civil service goals, plus the goal of 1 year, yes 1 year, of civil service by 2020.

    You can navigate the site or click here the link below to see who is involved. Rick Warren even made the list! Big surprise, NOT.

    http://blogofbile.com/2008/07/29/a-list-of-those-leading-the-way-toward-fascist-slavery/

    You too could have been involved in this “grass roots effort” earning $3750 (taxpayer $ no doubt)!

    http://www.idealist.org/if/i/en/h/blog/calling-all-change-agents–service-nation

    Future events coming soon:
    http://www.volunteeringandservice.org/index.html

  19. SeeksTruth says:

    Why do they keep flipping the stars on our flag to the upside-down position? Keep seeing this more and more and see it again in their glossy brochure. Why?

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/btcreal/856/SERVICENATION_POLICY_BOOK.pdf

  20. SeeksTruth says:

    Jeff,
    You just have to do an expose on this “Service Nation” thing when you get a chance.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/btcreal/856/SERVICENATION_POLICY_BOOK.pdf

    The more I read, the more I am infuriated.

    All law-abiding, tax-paying citizens already serve their country in the most honorable way possible by doing just that — playing by the rules.

    Additionally, we home educate. We take a load off their system while still paying school taxes. I easily devote 8-10 hours a day, but will this count as “civil service?”

    What about the time that many of us spend serving in our churches and synagogues? Does that count?

    I know it is all “voluntary” for now, but for how long? And the fact that there are bribes(college tuition carrots) makes it seem more like a “pay to play” scheme to me.

    Merry Christmas to all. Let not the Grinch steal your joy! :-)

  21. Queen916 says:

    Indiana Lawsuit

    December 25, 2008

    Hoosiers file suit challenging Obama’s birth status

    2 Hoosiers want results of election thrown out

    By Tim Evans
    tim.evans@indystar.com

    As officials in Washington prepare for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, two Indiana men have filed a lawsuit asking a judge to throw out the election results.

    The suit, filed in Marion Superior Court, Room 10, is among five loosely coordinated challenges that question Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”

    Gov. Mitch Daniels and the Republican and Democratic national committees are named as defendants in the Indiana suit, filed by Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn.

    These new suits take a slightly different tack than earlier, unsuccessful suits that typically have been tossed by the courts and generally considered frivolous.

    The new suits challenge the governor and political parties for failing to uphold the Constitution when they certified the results of the election.

    Henry Karlson, professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, said he doubts the suit will have much traction. He said the plaintiffs lack standing because there was no harm unique to them, as there may have been to another candidate. Karlson also said the challenge seems to have been filed too late, and the suit targets the wrong people.

    “They should be suing the electors,” he said, “not the governor.”

    Ankeny — who is not an attorney and describes himself as a legal researcher and “interested citizen” — said similar suits were filed this month in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois and Michigan.

    The Marion County suit contends neither Obama, a Democrat, nor Republican Sen. John McCain proved he was a “natural born citizen,” a constitutional requirement to qualify for the presidency. They also claim neither candidate was eligible to be elected president because both were sitting U.S. senators at the time of the election.

    “Our argument is that there has to be evidence that a candidate — any candidate — actually meets the qualifications,” Ankeny said.

    “Essentially, what we are asking of the governor and the two other defendants is that they not certify a vote for (Obama or McCain) unless the candidates were actually eligible.”

    Ankeny said he thinks there are legitimate questions about the “natural born” status of both McCain and Obama, whose birth in Hawaii had been challenged several times during the campaign.

    The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    The problem is that there is not an explicit definition of a “natural born” citizen. Clearly qualifying is a person born on U.S. soil to parents who are both citizens. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. citizens while his father was stationed there in the service. Obama was born in Hawaii, but his father was not a U.S. citizen. Some have even alleged Obama was not born in the U.S.

    Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear a challenge to Obama’s citizenship.

    The dispute about Obama’s citizenship has been addressed by the nonpartisan group factcheck.org, which reports: “FactCheck .org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. . . . Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

    During the campaign, Obama released a copy of his birth certificate, although not the original, and his birth was reported in The Honolulu Advertiser newspaper.

    Jane Jankowski, spokeswoman for Daniels, confirmed the office had received a copy of the suit.

    “We don’t have a comment,” she said Wednesday.

    Judge David Dreyer, who will hear the case, said he could not talk about the specifics of the lawsuit.

    “This is a very free country,” he said, “and these parties will be given the full consideration and respect that all parties will get.”

    The defendants in the suit have until Tuesday to file a response or seek an automatic 30-day extension. Officials at the Indiana state Republican and Democratic parties refused to accept the summons. Hand-written notes on the summons forms state that officials refused because they were not the national committees. It was not clear Wednesday whether national party officials had been served.

    Ankeny said the suit is not just about unseating Obama.

    “This is about any candidate. We don’t care who it is,” he said. “We just want to make sure the Constitution of the United States is followed by the governor and the two parties who were responsible (for nominating the candidates).”

    Ankeny acknowledged “some people will think we are crazy or nuts” because of the suit. He said he doesn’t take offense to that, but he thinks there is a legitimate motive to bring the legal action.

    “Our focus is to make sure the Constitution of the United States is enforced,” he said. “That’s all we are asking.”

    ——————————————————————————–

  22. albertstein says:

    Ms. Cris Ericson, Vermont, U.S.

    Nice new great ideas you present on the case. I hope your ideas can move forward to help in this case.

    You will know god is working in your life when everything happens at the last minute. I try to have faith in god to pull this one out at the last minute. This will officially be a miracle in my little book of miracles.

    Jeff this new sign in is a big pain in the proverbial rear end. lets go back to easy postings.

  23. bob strauss says:

    Pat Gund, Where do you get that 9-0 vote number from? I’ve never seen anything that shows how the Justices vote for, or against, any case until the case is over and an opinion is given.

  24. bob strauss says:

    It doesn’t matter what it says on his birth certificate, if his father was Barack Obama senior, “Obama jr.” would have been born a British citizen and can never qualify as a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

  25. Koyaan says:

    albertstein wrote:

    Ms. Cris Ericson, Vermont, U.S.

    Nice new great ideas you present on the case.

    Except I don’t see anything regarding the issue of standing.

    You can have the greatest ideas in the world, but unless you have standing to bring the case to begin with, it’s all moot.

    k

  26. Queen916 says:

    Jeff:

    Could it be that Atty. andy Martin is right?

    If Frank Marshall Davis is the real father of Obama, this would explain his reluctance to produce the original copy of his birth certificate, and the reason his mother traveled to Kenya to have the baby. Maybe, Obama discovered who his real father is and is ashamed to expose the sins of his deceased mother. If true, Obama would be a natural born citizen.

    “OBAMA’S REAL BIRTH LOCATION, AND HIS REAL FATHER: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
    In light of the fact that the judge in the Philip Berg v. Obama and DNC case dismissed this case because of lack of standing on the part of Mr. Berg, ( http://www.americasright.com ), it is unfortunate indeed that citizens (until our Worthless Congress takes their heads out of their a**es and writes some laws protecting us from allowing this type of situation) have no recourse to prevent this situation we are about to enter, and simply must proceed to either a constitutional crisis or total destruction of the country by a Marxist communist who is likely foreign born and not even basically qualified to be President. The judge might like to do more, but unless he “legislates from the bench” like liberal judges would (he is a Republican I understand), he has to rule on the basis of law — and I agree with his decision on that basis. As unfortunate as it is, the judge is likely correct in his ruling.

    Here’s my take on the Obama citizenship situation. My view is a combination of both the Andy Martin theories and the Philip Berg theories. (See links in previous posts shown below.) It takes both into consideration and doesn’t ignore any of the possible scenarios. My theory:

    Obama is a dead ringer for Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis is his father, and the “Anne” in Frank Marshall Davis’ sex/porn book IS Ann, Obama’s mother. There was an agreement between Frank Marshall Davis (as Andy Martin states) and Barack Obama, Sr. for Obama, Sr. to pose as Barack’s father. As the birth approached, Obama, Sr. wanted to move back to Kenya, and Ann agreed to go with him. She intended to come back to Hawaii before Barack’s birth and give birth to him in Hawaii. Unknowingly, she waited to long, and was too close to giving birth that the airline would not let her board a flight back to the U.S. She had no choice but to give birth to Barack in Kenya. She did, and within days after the birth flew back to Hawaii to get birth documentation. However, she was not able to get a full-fledged birth certificate since he was not born in Hawaii and only could obtain the Live Birth documentation. Additionally, Barack was not qualified to be a “natural-born citizen” as she was not yet 19 (the law at the time for children born to parents while overseas). Barack’s paternal grandmother claimed she was present for his birth in Kenya, and this is likely the case. The fraud was perpetuated until present, and she likely still does not know that Obama is not her blood grandson.

    Obama, Sr. never really had a connection with Barack, Jr. as he was not his blood son, and didn’t really try to maintain any consistent relationship with him. However, the facade was continued by Ann and her parents. In Hawaii Barack became close to Frank Marshall Davis but Barack did not know until much later that Frank was Barack’s father. One reason why Barack may not want the public to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is likely because of Frank’s Communist admissions, and membership in the Communist Party USA (even though his stated father, Barack Obama, Sr., was also a Marxist communist, but was not as related to the United States politically).

    Another reason Barack may not want you to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is because of Davis’s graphic and infamous sex/porn book “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet),” (written under pseudonym “Bob Greene”); Greenleaf Publishing Company (Evanston, IL), 1968. This would not reflect well on Barack, especially in light of the fact that Frank Marshall Davis had homosexual proclivities, and Barack has been connected to the scandal that involved deaths of 3 homosexual men in Rev. Wright’s Trinity church near the end of 2007, even though the news media has tried to cover up any link to Barack Obama in this situation. See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_

    Internet birth certificate poses new problems for Obama “cover-up” says Andy Martin

    Internet powerhouse Andy Martin on future litigation in Hawai’i
    “My decision to launch an investigation in Hawai’i has been fully vindicated,” he says\
    Andy set for national TV coverage this week

    ANDY MARTIN

    Executive Editor
    ContrarianCommentary.com

    “Factually Correct, Not
    Politically Correct”

    ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS

    ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    Internet powerhouse Andy Martin releases Hawai’i litigation plans

    “My decision to launch a Hawai’i investigation of Barack Obama’s ‘hidden past’ has been outstandingly vindicated,” he says

    Andy is in New York for upcoming TV network interviews

    (NEW YORK)(October 25, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Saturday afternoon, October 25th (today) to disclose his future course of action on Obama litigation in Hawai’i.

    “We began planning our Hawai’i investigation in early September. We announced ‘Operation Aloha Obama’ in mid-September. People wondered why we were heading for Hawaii when all of the political action was on the mainland. I believe our action launching an intense investigation in Hawai’i has been outstandingly vindicated by our discoveries and by the reaction of other players,” Andy Martin states. “No one questions our news judgment any more.

    “Now we are facing decisions on what to do with our pending lawsuit in Honolulu. We have made a fund raising appeal for support to continue the Hawaii litigation (see below).

    “It was only a week ago that we filed our first lawsuit in Hawai’i, on Friday October 17th. The judge in that case promptly signed an order scheduling a hearing. We asked the Hawaii Supreme Court to reschedule the hearing, and to allow phone participation, and the Supreme Court denied that request.
    http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.htm

    “We will of course respect the decision of the Supreme Court and return to the Circuit Court. How we deal with the November 7th hearing remains an open question.

    “My lawsuit is narrowly focused in the right court, seeking relief under the right statute, in the right state.

    “The fact remains that a leading candidate for president, Barack Obama, has denied the media and denied the American people access to the original copy of his alleged 1961 birth certificate. No one has seen this document. The ‘original’ that Obama has distributed is a facsimile of a current computer-generated record. That is why Obama’s ‘certificate’ has been completely discredited.

    “Someone has posted on the Internet what is supposed to be a copy of a 1963 birth certificate. http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521

    “Although this posting was made some weeks ago, the link was only sent to me yesterday. The online certificate could be considered a ‘template’ for how Obama’s 1961 birth certificate should appear. But using the 1963 document as a template for 1961, it is obvious that Obama has concealed the original copy of his birth certificate.

    “Obama has never issued any document that is similar to the 1963 posting; the ‘certificate’ posted by Obama bears no relationship to the online example posted by someone else.

    “I believe the Hawaii courts can and properly should allow access to Obama’s original document. No one has seen that piece of paper and Obama has worked hard to keep that document secret.

    “I have one question for Mr.-Wants-To-Be-President Obama: Why are you concealing access to the original copy of your birth certificate. WHY?”

    Andy Martin’s litigation is not related in any form or fashion to any other lawsuit pending in any other court.

    Andy is in New York for TV network interviews.

    NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

    WHO:

    Internet powerhouse and national anti-Obama leader/author Andy Martin

    WHAT:

    National anti-Obama leader Andy Martin comments on his pending Hawaii birth certificate litigation

    WHERE:

    Northeast corner of 57th Street and Sixth Avenue, New York (CapitalOne bank branch corner)

    WHEN: Saturday, October 25, 5:00 P. M.

    MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329

    TO PURCHASE BOOK: Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from http://www.OrangeStatePress.com

    ANDY E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com

    ———————————————-
    CONTRARIANCOMMENTARY.COM
    New York-London-Washington-Chicago-San Francisco-Palm Beach

    Headquarters mail:
    Post Office Box 1851
    New York, NY 10150-1851
    Tel. (866) 706-2639
    Fax (866) 707-2639
    Web: ContrarianCommentary.com
    E-mail: andymart20@aol.com

    Andy Martin, J. D.
    Professor of Law (Adj.)
    Executive Editor

    October 24, 2008

    Dear Friends:

    I am back in ContrarianCommentary.com’s New York office and unpacking after our spectacularly successful Hawaii trip.

    We managed to uncover the truth about the “hidden Obama” and his true family origins. Many Americans believe that our disclosures may have drawn Obama back to Hawaii, as well as attracting other authors (Jerome Corsi is now there) to begin additional research. Few credit the “grandmother is sick” story for the suspension of Obama’s campaign; Michelle now says “Toot’s doing fine.” Hmmm. Pretty fast recovery.

    As you are probably aware, on October 17th I filed a lawsuit in the Honolulu Circuit Court seeking access to Obama’s original birth certificate. I am seeking the right remedy, under the right statute, in the right court, in the right state.

    The birth certificate case is still pending and I will be holding a New York news conference on Saturday (October 25th) to discuss the matter. The trial judge set a hearing for November 7th. I did not feel that November 7th was a sufficiently expeditious date in light of the election on the 4th, and I challenged that date in the Hawaii Supreme Court through a petition for writ of mandamus.

    The Hawaii Supreme Court denied my request to expedite the hearing or to allow me to appear by telephone.
    http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.htm

    So the lawsuit is back in the Circuit Court. I have to show up in Hawaii on November 7th if the lawsuit is to proceed. I do not know how many people will still want to pursue the disclosure of Obama’s true birth certificate after November 4th. There may be many, or a few, or none.

    ContrarianCommentary.com is a small organization. While we have had a massive impact on the 2008 election we operate on a limited budget. We exhausted our travel budget with the trip to investigate Obama’s Hawaii years and to file the birth certificate lawsuit.

    If you would like the birth certificate battle to proceed, you can consider contributing to a fund to continue the litigation.

    We will have to cover the costs of a last-minute trip to Hawaii on November 5th, as well as the costs of appeals, perhaps more travel, etc.

    Unlike the $100 contribution limit imposed by http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com on political contributions, there are no limits on contributions to defray the expenses of Obama-related litigation. There is no limit on contributing to the travel and litigation expense fund because we need to fund the litigation expenses into the indefinite future.

    We don’t know what the costs will be but they will run in the thousands to pursue the lawsuit to a conclusion. Expenses tend to add up, particularly when you have to make last-minute reservations, pay appellate filing fees and transcript costs and generally be able to respond to court orders. In my case I will also incur penalties to change existing reservations since I would have to redo my already-paid travel plans. We may have to make more than one trip to Hawaii.

    Again, I don’t have a clue whether anyone wants to pursue the birth certificate issue after the election, but I am prepared to do so if there is financial support to continue the fight.

    We cannot surrender to Barack Obama on November 4th. On November 5th the battle to protect this great nation must continue whoever wins the election.

    There are two ways to contribute to support the birth certificate litigation battle:

    First, if you want to make an immediate online contribution through the http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com, please note on your contribution that it is for Andy Martin Travel and Legal costs, and the contribution limit will be waived.

    Second, you can mail checks or money orders to me at P. O. Box 1851 address in New York (see letterhead). We will close this solicitation on October 29th. If there is sufficient money on hand on the 29th, we will go forward and make the travel plans to be in Hawai’i on November 7th. If not, we will return the checks to the donors (or online contributors). (You may want to overnight any donation by Express Mail.)

    Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Please note that the CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com will also be making a fund appeal to continue fighting the Obama campaign. This letter offering to accept funds to defray the costs of expenses for the birth certificate lawsuit is separate, because we need to keep the expenses of litigation separate from the expenses of election activity.

    I apologize for the fact that we will be sending out two fund raising appeals in close order, but we are going to do our beat to defeat Barack Obama and continue to seek the facts and truth about whom he is.

    I am not anxious to make the long trip back to Hawaii, but if there is public demand to fight on, we will.

    With all best wishes,

    ANDY MARTIN

    Aim’s

    ———————————————-
    Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama’s unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
    Book orders: http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
    ———————————————
    FULL DISCLOSURE: I recently decided to oppose Barack Obama’s election and became Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I became the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am not a member of any political organization. The views expressed are entirely independent. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my news and opinion columns for ContrarianCommentary.com. /s/ Andy Martin
    ———————————————-
    URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.”
    The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for,” says Executive Director Andy Martin. “But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can’t just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will.”
    E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
    ———————————————
    Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

    His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

    MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or cell (917) 664-9329
    E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

  27. tanarg says:

    The trouble with this new lawsuit is that there is likely no statute in Indiana requiring anyone to check original documents, and the state relied, most likely, on the nominating papers signed by the DNC people (Pelosi is one, I believe) that stated that the candidates were qualified. I’ve seen one such document online. I called my state and was told nobody checked anything — they relied on the DNC.

  28. tanarg says:

    Ted,

    One thing though, about your letter, is that it doesn’t deal with the fact that Obama evidently had dual citizenship at birth. I just realized that, which I see Bob Strauss posted, as well. However, his birth certificate *would* establish who the true father is, so it would be needed for that reason alone. But we also need to know if the man’s a natural born citizen. The statute in effect in 1961 may have said one parent was enough, but for the purposes of the constitutional requirement for the presidency, the intent of the framers ought to be considered as well. That’s why the Supreme Court has to rule on it, in my opinion. I think it’s outrageous that the thing hasn’t been defined in all these years.

  29. Koyaan says:

    Queen916 wrote:

    OBAMA’S REAL BIRTH LOCATION, AND HIS REAL FATHER: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS

    No, silly.

    His real father is Malcolm X:

    Is Obama the secret son of Malcolm X?

    *sigh*

    I hope Obama’s first act as President is to get Congress to dramatically increase the mental health budget.

    k

  30. Dave Melendez says:

    Jeff,

    I found this interesting post on the ObamaCrimes blog. I would love to hear your comments…

    —————————–

    Ok—Now I See The Big Picture!
    by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008

    In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.

    The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the…???

    Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.

    However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s writ of certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!

    Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s maneuvering of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the writ of certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!

    Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgment is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

    And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to maneuver and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!

    So now I see the big picture and the ultimate endgame that the Supreme Court has in mind for Barack Obama. Just like in chess, the winner is the person who sees many moves in advance; in this case the winner is the Supreme Court! They’ve set a checkmate legal trap for Obama, whereby even if there are no objections by any members of congress, the Electoral College’s votes are counted and Obama is declared the presidential winner on January 8th. The Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid! And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!

    I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States. But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out maneuvered Obama and his team of high priced attorneys. First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing! And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes! There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

    So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!

  31. rightky says:

    Jeff,
    I am curious as to your opinion–

    Does Berg’s case, as written, cover the “natural born” qualification as addressed by Donofrio and Wrotnowski, if in fact Obama does produce a certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, i.e. the fact that his father was a Kenyan citizen? If a certificate is produced that proves the birth on US soil, will his father’s lack of US citizenship even be addressed under this case?

    And, to let my imagination run wild with perhaps the simplest solution of all, what if it is discovered that Obama Sr was not in fact, the father, but rather another US citizen. Then would another case be needed to address the intent to defraud? Of course, Obama could claim his family withheld this information from him and he was innocent of any wrongdoing. What then?

  32. tanarg says:

    I’ve sent the following to my congressional representative and my senators, and to every Republican senator. It’s short and sweet, so please feel free to use it:

    As of today, December 27, 2008, no legal authority in the United States has publicly stated that Barack Obama meets the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen.

    Many Americans will not accept that a man will be inaugurated as president who has not been shown to meet the constitutional requirements for that office.

    I expect you, as a defender of truth and decency, to take action on January 8, 2009 to establish once and for all whether Barack Obama is legally qualified to be president.

    Sincerely,

  33. tanarg says:

    Dave Melendez,

    I don’t think you have proved your allegations. Why does Berg all of a sudden have standing? And can you back up your claims with evidence as to their veracity? That is, what evidence are you using to reach your conclusions? You’ve stated your conclusions several different times, but you’ve offered no reasons other than mere assertions. On what basis, that is, are you claiming that the Supreme Court will recognize that harm has been done to Berg? Your own thoughts or someone else’s analysis? Obama is under no compulsion whatever to produce any evidence to the Supreme Court, so I do not follow your argument at all. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say?

  34. Anonymous says:

    Obama is hiding so many things, his school records, medical records etc, that it makes me think he is only hiding his birth certificate to distract us and to make those of us, who care about the meaning of the constitution more than the votes of the mob, out to be the crazy ones. They will feel vindicated when the supremes bless their messiah as natural born enough for the job. It might even be thought a make good call to compensate the left for SCOTUS’s decision to end the Florida recounts in 2000.
    Roses,WA

  35. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t President Bush put his hand on the bible and promised to uphold and protect the constitution? Why is he silent now?

  36. Anonymous says:

    I would just like the MSM, Rush, Hannity, Greta, the White House, and anyone else claiming that the Obama BC issue is a “non-issue” to explain how it is that they came to that conclusion. What information do they have that lets them feel confident that he is eligible, and why will they not share it with the rest of us, so that we can get on with our lives.

    I am not a conspiracy theorist. I would never have thought that this kind of thing was possible, in fact I can not believe I am even involved with researching this subject daily, but something is very wrong with our “President Elect”, and I want to scream for others around me to wake up before it is too late!

    I am having survivalist thoughts of buying land in the middle of nowhere and defending my family and country.

    My God, I’m a middle-aged mother of two! If I am thinking this way, this is going to be one crazy ride.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,

    I read your site daily. Thanks for the insights. This guy has another twist on why the Supreme Court Chose the 9th and the 16th. I think he’s saying once Obama is officially president, Berg will have standing. http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/12/seeing-big-picture.html

    What’s your take on that?

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    In order to be a Natural Born Citizen when you have an alien father and a US Citizen mother, you had to have been born BEFORE May 24, 1934.

  38. Anonymous says:

    does anybody have any info on the Broe vs Reed case in Washington state? I thought this was the only case that was allowed to go to hearing, and the documents were due by both parties today, dec 28th. Did Obama produce the documents? thanks in advance

  39. Mel Smith says:

    Since the American PRAVDA media is keeping a tight lid on this story, I’m trying to post all relevant links on this page:
    http://obamathefraud.blogtownhall.com/

    Please send any that are directly relevant to Obama’s birth fraud.

  40. tanarg says:

    Jeff,

    In Perkins v. Elg, the following appears:

    On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:

    ***’Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; ***but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of [307 U.S. 325, 331] the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of twenty-one years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be right reason’ and I think it is law’.

    _______
    My question to you relates to the text between the asterisks: Is that an erroneous opinion of the attorney general at the time? Did he write “native” when he meant to write “natural”?

    Maybe my brain is just fried… this isn’t necessarily something for the blog if it’s not going to interest others, but I’m wondering whether I understand anything or not.

    Thanks.

  41. tanarg says:

    Jeff,

    Oh, wait a minute. I see elsewhere that he meant native born and natural born to mean the same thing. But they don’t, do they? Isn’t John McCain natural born but not native born? Sorry to bother you. This is driving me (and a lot of others) nuts! Whatever can we do???? Again, this can be private, and not posted.

  42. tanarg says:

    Why hasn’t the same thing been done for Obama that was done for McCain? See
    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html.

    From the URL above:

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

    ——-

    Right there we have language that would tend to indicate that both parents must be citizens.

    The bottom line of all this appears to be that the politicians can actually do whatever they want and, in fact, our Constitution offers us no protection at all. None. Zip.

    Unless we can affect the political process NOW and stop the certification of the vote January 8, we will have to resort to filing lawsuits by people who refuse to carry out orders from a person they deem to be unqualified constitutionally to hold the office of president.

    So, the politicians and the judiciary wants the political process to take its course. OK. We will be patient. But then, oh my, I think it’s going to get very nasty. There are evidently some folks who are not feeling very diplomatic about this situation and there is no telling what some of them might do.

    This is depressing. I cannot grasp that no senator or congressperson cares about this issue. I just cannot. I refuse to believe that. I’ve heard that some people may actually fear for their lives and that’s why they’re remaining silent (did I read that on this blog? Sorry if I’m not giving proper credit to whoever said it). We need to think about that possibility.

  43. tanarg says:

    And why would a federal judge rule on the *merits* of the case while at the same time ruling that the plaintiff had no standing?

    http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1354301&nid=213

    September 17, 2008 – 11:55pm

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit seeking to remove John McCain from the California ballot because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

    U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled late Tuesday that the law at the time of McCain's birth automatically granted citizenship to offspring of U.S. citizens.

    McCain's parents were both citizens when McCain was born Aug. 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory where his father was stationed with the U.S. Navy.

    Alsup said Congress passed a law the following year specifically to "remove any doubt as to persons in Sen. McCain's circumstances in the Canal Zone," thus "retroactively rendering Sen. McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already."

    The Constitution requires that only "natural born" citizens hold the presidency, a term on which the Founding Fathers did not elaborate.

    The judge also said the plaintiff, Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party, had no standing to file the lawsuit because he is not a candidate for president.

    McCain said last February that the issue was put to rest 44 years ago when Republican Barry Goldwater sought the presidency. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory.

  44. Anonymous says:

    If everyone hasn't done so already, please go and sign the petition over at WND. They are now close to 200,000 signatures.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

    thanks,
    kitty

  45. Anonymous says:

    Jeff:

    Can you detail for us:

    What is the supreme court going to decide about if they say they will accept Berg’s case on January 9th?

    Will they look at all the evidence or only say if he can have a case at the other court with all the evidence?

    Some people say this is only some type of appeal to the Supreme Court because the other court said no to the case and this is not the real trial?

    Please tell us specifics about this. There are a lot of different ideas and Mr. Berg’s complaint to the Supreme Court includes the entire case and all the evidence from the other court.

    Maybe can you write a post about what they will be doing on January 9th if they accept the case that day? Will they decide it that day too?

  46. Anonymous says:

    If you have any expectation that either the January 9th or 16th conference will produce something other than denials for Berg, well, best of luck tilting at that windmill.

    As for why Berg is in on two difference conferences: government bureaucracies are notoriously ineffecient. Rather than speculate on sinister motives or read too much into tea leaves, try the obvious answer first. Would it make more sense to bundle the application and cert. petition? Of course. Why do you suddenly now expect the federal government to do something that makes sense?

Speak Your Mind

*