Berg v. Obama at Supreme Court Conference Today

As soon as I hear something on today’s scheduled conference at the United States Supreme Court for Berg v. Obama, I’ll post it in this space. Of course, word of the court’s determination as to Philip Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari may very well not come until Monday.

Regardless, check back here from time to time for news. As soon as I know something, you’ll know something.

– Jeff

11:45am

Until we know anything further–that is, until any result is reflected on the docket or by any of the contacts that I trust–please think twice about subscribing to blanket assertions with regard to the disposition of this matter. Of course, the odds against the Supreme Court granting the petition for certiorari in this case, or in any case for that matter, are longer than long so the unsubstantiated rumors of either denial or acceptance should be treated as just that — rumors founded in safe guesses.

Furthermore, with regard to the rumors swirling around as to a unanimous denial, please remember that generally it’s only in the rare case of a dissent as to the Court’s decision on a petition for certiorari that the actual voting result will be released.

12:45pm

I spoke with Philip Berg a few minutes ago. He said that he was realistic but hopeful, that he had a feeling that the Court would take the case “because, perhaps, they’re seeing just how much it matters to the American people.”

Berg also referred to the current controversy surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris to Barack Obama’s vacant seat in the U.S. Senate as a timely bonus, mentioning that it was nice to hear Sen. Harry Reid and others earlier this week talk about how the Senate retains the right to ascertain the qualifications of Burris.

“All this talk about the Constitution and qualifications to serve can only help,” Berg said, “though in the end it will come down to the Constitution itself. I’m hoping that the Justices will see that upholding the Constitution may not always be easy, but outweighs any outside considerations when it comes to the welfare of the United States of America.”

2:15pm

Berg v. Obama is not among today’s list of orders, though nothing new has appeared on the docket. Make of that what you will.

Share

Comments

  1. Carlyle says:

    I hate to do this – it just feeds Koyaan and other Obots – but I must, in case there are others who might be swayed by his illogic.

    Electronic copies posted on the Internet are NEVER legal for any purpose. And there is a good reason. It is not relevant or not whether this document is actually forged or not. It is sufficient disqualification that it is forgable. I could make a COLB about Obama that looked just as good or authentic as the one Koyaan likes and post it on the Internet. No one, not me, not Koyaan, not a brigade of forensic examiners could tell which was more authentic. Furthermore, mere mortals (Koyann and myself included) are not qualified to determine the pedigree of a document (electronic or otherwise). The only way any document can serve a legal purpose is for the original paper document to be presented (with the proper chain of custody) to designated legal authorities (e.g. courts). In the case of Obama this has not been done, every, anywhere. This is the essence of the matter and where we must start. Unless and until that is done, Obama is legally ineligible. Obama doesn’t need to be accused of any fact (e.g. born in Kenya) nor does there need to be a smoking gun. He is simply and directly illegal because he has not presented proper credentials.

  2. Anonymous says:

    “Why do we need a trial? In any court, right now? Isn’t it premature for that?”

    Subpeonas, etc. require probable cause. There’s no indication thus far that the law-enforcement professionals believe there is probable cause.

    “It is actually a promising sign that the Supreme Court sealed the case.”

    SCOTUS wouldn’t be sealing the case. Mostly like Berg himself sealed it, after his mistake was pointed out.

    “This whole thing would have been a small issue if the courts had been responsible in the first place and just showed support for the constitution the swore to uphold.”

    The courts have been responsible — and have been upholding the constitution — by dismissing these frivolous lawsuits.

    “The Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth—on the other hand—contains information that can be easily and readily investigated—information that could immediately answer one of the main questions surrounding Obama’s constitutional eligibility.”

    What, exactly, would the birth certificate contain that the COLB does not that would answer these “constitutional eligibility” questions? There’s no constitution does not demand the president’s height, weight, or attending physician.

    “A more modern statute that has gotten a lot of attention on the blogosphere is S.338.17.8 which sets vague standards for the issuance of birth certificates to children not even born in Hawaii.”

    Where, exactly, in HRS 17.8 allows a foreign-born child to obtain a Hawaiian COLB that lists the place of birth as “Honolulu”?

    “http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/12/big-picture-scotus-v-obama.html”

    The author of this has no idea what they are talking about.

    First off, stays preserve the status quo; there’s no such thing as a “retroactive stay.”

    Second, among the criteria for granting a stay is the likelihood of success on the underlying action. The denial of Berg’s cert. petition means there’s NO chance of success, so there’ll be no stay.

  3. Anonymous says:

    “The only way any document can serve a legal purpose is for the original paper document to be presented (with the proper chain of custody) to designated legal authorities (e.g. courts).”

    No authority has requested that Obama produce his COLB. Before stating that Obama’s presidency is illegal, you have to specify to whom he is legally obligated to present his credentials to.

    Strictly speaking, you are correct that electionic version of the COLB is not sufficient legal proof of his birth; that would require the actual COLB. But, again, Obama is not under any obligation to present his COLB.

    The electronic version of the COLB posted was intended only to satisfy any questions that the electorate may have had — it wan’t posted to fulfill a legal obligation. Moreover, there’s been no serious questioning of the validity of the electronic COLB, unless you consider the opinion of an anonymous “expert” (whose work since has been debunked) to be “serious.”

  4. Kris says:

    What, exactly, would the birth certificate contain that the COLB does not that would answer these “constitutional eligibility” questions? There’s no constitution does not demand the president’s height, weight, or attending physician.

    Your assumption then negates the forensic analysts’ assessments that the COLB is a forgery.

  5. Larry Walker Jr says:

    The Lineage of Barack Hussein Obama II

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Stanley Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.

    What if Obama Sr. was still living?

    If Obama Sr. was still alive, and living in Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, would Obama II have dared to run for POTUS? Would you still insist that Obama II met the qualification of being a natural born citizen? This is highly doubtful. Perhaps our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw that if the non-citizen parent(s) were deceased, then there would no longer be a potential conflict of allegiances. However, I find no such reasoning in the writings of Vattel.

    The New Natural Born Citizen

    So the new 21st Century definition of a natural born citizen must be “one whose non-citizen parent(s) are deceased at the time of his candidacy, and who is presumed to have been born on U.S. soil.” And further, that, “the burden of proof is soleley based upon the word of the candidate.” And lastly, that, “no citizen shall have standing to challenge whether or not a candidate meets these qualifications.”

  6. Koyaan says:

    Kris wrote:

    Your assumption then negates the forensic analysts’ assessments that the COLB is a forgery.

    And your assumption negates the fact that no forensic analyst’s assessment has declared the COLB a forgery.

    And please don’t bring up Polarik or Techdude. They are both nothing more than a couple of anonymous frauds.

    k

  7. Anonymous says:

    My dad made a very interesting point today – when did Obama’s new Pres vehicle start being built? Nov 4th or Before?

  8. Anonymous says:

    My point about the car is simply this – if it was commissioned earlier then don’t you think the “powers that be”, ie: the same ones protecting Obama through all of this mess of lies and deceit – already had bought his promised election?

  9. Koyaan says:

    Carlyle wrote:

    Electronic copies posted on the Internet are NEVER legal for any purpose. And there is a good reason. It is not relevant or not whether this document is actually forged or not. It is sufficient disqualification that it is forgable.

    The scan and photographs posted on the web were never posted for any legal purpose.

    Duh! Can you say “non sequitur”?

    The only way any document can serve a legal purpose is for the original paper document to be presented (with the proper chain of custody) to designated legal authorities (e.g. courts). In the case of Obama this has not been done, every, anywhere. This is the essence of the matter and where we must start. Unless and until that is done, Obama is legally ineligible. Obama doesn’t need to be accused of any fact (e.g. born in Kenya) nor does there need to be a smoking gun. He is simply and directly illegal because he has not presented proper credentials.

    Name one president who has ever presented “proper credentials” to any “legal authority.”

    k

  10. Koyaan says:

    Anonymous wrote:

    My dad made a very interesting point today – when did Obama’s new Pres vehicle start being built? Nov 4th or Before?

    Who says there is any new presidential vehicle being built, or if there is, that it is being built specifically for Obama and not simply whomever may have become the next President?

    k

  11. Anonymous says:

    What relevance is Obama’s father’s citizenship?

    The plain text meaning of the 14th Amendment is that anyone who was born in the United States is born a U.S. Citizen, hence they are a natural born citizen.

    See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

  12. Forseti says:

    Look at factcheck.org’s reporting of the issue of BHO’s Birth Certificate.

    They claim, “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” They then provide a link in the article to a photograph of this “original birth certificate.”

    It is a picture of the Certification of Live Birth, and not the original birth certificate! Looks like a misrepresentation to me.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    This misrepresentation matters to me because I’ve talked to many professionals about the issue. They reply by citing factcheck.org’s birth certificate as “evidence” that he’s a natural born citizen. They almost appear dumbfounded when I clue them in.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “And further, that, “the burden of proof is soleley based upon the word of the candidate.”"

    And a valid COLB, which would still be valid regardless of whether Obama’s parents were still alive.

    “And lastly, that, “no citizen shall have standing to challenge whether or not a candidate meets these qualifications.”"

    Clinton had standing; McCain has standing. Heck, Keyes and Lightfoot have standing (they just can’t state a cause of action).

  14. JeffM says:

    Anonymous said…

    “Thanks for reminding us of the type of attorneys that are representing these frivolous cases”

    You and your french-fried friend here need to do your homework.

    Broe v. Reed’s Attorney Stephen Pidgeon:

    Stephen Pidgeon, juris doctorate, is a recipient of the 2008 Presidential Commission, the 2008 Reagan Congressional Commission, a two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Distinction (2006, 2007), and a designee’ for the 2006 Businessman of the Year award. He has been named in Who’s Who, and Who’s Who in Business, is an ally of the Alliance Defense Fund, a friend of Advocates International, the Rule of Law Institute, the Individual Rights Foundation, the Human Action League, the Institute for Justice, the Federalist Society, the International Justice Society, the Christian Legal Society, the World Evangelical Alliance, and others promoting religious freedom, economic freedom, and civil society throughout the world.

    That sounds like a bottom of the barrel attorney to me (sarcasm mine). Washington allows standing to voters by statute. This case HAS STANDING and will be heard by SCOTUS. If it is not heard, then we know exactly where the Supreme Court stands on “standing”, and therefore we should begin a campaign to get them removed from the bench for lack of understanding of what STANDING means.

    Please do your homework before making ignorant accusations such as these.

  15. Carlyle says:

    to Anonymous (i.e. Koyann clone)

    “No authority has requested that Obama produce his COLB.”

    This is exactly the point of a recent rather long post I made. We should be focusing on the process, not specifically Obama. You cannot be sure someone is eligible unless ‘someone’ does the verification. The biggest culprit in all this is the number of state actors who should have done this and didn’t. In fact, almost all current court cases are against such actors.

    Further, there are several key people (Nancy Pelosi is one) who claim to have done the vetting but did not.

    “Before stating that Obama’s residency is illegal, you have to specify to whom he is legally obligated to present his credentials to.”

    A person (i.e. Obama) is not eligible until he has been certified. A righteous candidate would not hide behind such BS technicality. There are any number of valid state actors who would be logical recipients of such information.

    Furthermore at least one federal court has given him the opportunity to be forthcoming and he has chosen to spit in the face thereof. Not illegal, per se, but dumb. More specifically, he missed at least one glorious opportunity he had to come clean.

    Finally, any sane person would know that it is far better to find out sooner than later. The hidden documents cannot be hidden forever. If Obama is truly eligible then the hidden documents would confirm that. If not, it would be better to find out now.

    All inteligent commenters on this topic need to read Edwin Vieira’s writings on what happens if a President is determined ineligible after having taken office.

    In the end, it just boils down to simple prudence and reasonable due diligence.

  16. Claudia says:

    Hey Larry Walker Jr,
    AND your point is???
    [The Lineage of Barack Hussein Obama II

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Stanley Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.]
    ON A STUDENT VISA, NOT PERMANENT RESIDENCY OR EVEN GREEN CARD, Therefore a Kenyan/UK Citizen, which makes Obama Jr (II) a Kenyan/UK Citizen by birth, even though he never exercised that right when he turned to the age of majority, but becuse his Mother was not of sufficeit age to give him her citizenship by laws at the time of his birth, so he was not automatically a Citizen of USA, and because he was adopted by Soetoro and registered in Indonesia in school as Indonesian Citizen for schooling purposes, he lost any USA citizenship he might have possibly everr held to that time, because USA did not recognize DUAL Citizenship during that period of time with Indonesia. The most Obama II can ever be as far as Citizenship is “Naturalized” by standing up and taking an Oath in front of an Immigration Officer or Consulate.

    [What if Obama Sr. was still living?]
    Would not make any difference at all, he would still be Kenyan/UK at the time of his birth, whiech is what Natural Born means for time frame.

    {If Obama Sr. was still alive, and living in Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, would Obama II have dared to run for POTUS? Would you still insist that Obama II met the qualification of being a natural born citizen? This is highly doubtful. Perhaps our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw that if the non-citizen parent(s) were deceased, then there would no longer be a potential conflict of allegiances. However, I find no such reasoning in the writings of Vattel.]

    Probably NOT, because there would be too much able to be spilled about his heritage/past and family ties that could NOT be silenced easily by anyone, even as it is, the whole world is buzzing with “allegations” and all of the history about Obama that he has been trying so hard to keep a lid on, because there are many out tthere in that “world” who know the truth about him. Vattel never put anything in his dissertation about parents being deceased because the whole premise of Vattel was that the parents were alive at the time and event of birth of said child, and making the point MOOT for any future information. The passing of Citizenship happens at BIRTH of the child, not at the death of said parents.

    [The New Natural Born Citizen

    So the new 21st Century definition of a natural born citizen must be "one whose non-citizen parent(s) are deceased at the time of his candidacy, and who is presumed to have been born on U.S. soil." And further, that, "the burden of proof is soleley based upon the word of the candidate." And lastly, that, "no citizen shall have standing to challenge whether or not a candidate meets these qualifications."]

    ONLY IN YOUR WET DREAMS –in the USA, IF at least the 58 million of us ever have anything to say about whether or not our Consititution is upheld or destroyed. I vote on it being upheld AS IS. Your questions are bogus and trying to mislead and parse words and meanings to suit yourself or whomever you are trying to appease with the answers to your questionable suppositions you wanted to have verified.

    Claudia,
    Reno, NV

  17. Let us move forward says:

    Mr. O’s avoidance of his citizenship issue is a mistake. Maybe his only desire is to prevent his complex history from being made public. Maybe he really does have a weak claim to NBC according to some interpretation of current law and is eligible.

    By not addressing the issue head on, he has been weakened. The Genie is out of the bottle and can only be contained by drastic measures.

    Remember that all Burris had to say was NBC and he was in the Senate. (Of course Burris could avoid the race card.) Blagojevich knows what is going on and so does Pelosi. Reid may or may not. Blagojevich probably knows other things that Mr. O would not like to be public.

    Was Burris’ statement a threat to expose Mr. O’s citizenship history or an appeal to Mr. O’s empathy? Can Mr. O be coerced into doing something for someone, at least until the Inauguration, by a credible threat to expose his citizenship history? Does he think his citizenship history or “natural born” question won’t matter after he assumes the Office? I heard that he is planning to use his full name in Office, but “Hussein” was banned during the Campaign.

    We need to watch what happens between Congress and the White House. If Congress is able to strong arm the White House, it may be due to more than Mr. O’s inexperience. If the pressure is removed from Blagojevich, or he gets off, was it the hand of the White House? A pardon would be obvious.

    The Constitutional threat then becomes Separation of Powers.

    Mr. O needs to address his citizenship issue publicly ASAP.

  18. Koyaan says:

    Carlyle wrote:

    A person (i.e. Obama) is not eligible until he has been certified.

    Name one president that has ever been “certified.”

    k

  19. Koyaan says:

    JeffM wrote:

    That sounds like a bottom of the barrel attorney to me (sarcasm mine).

    Are you kidding me?

    All that list shows is that he’s a good little evangelical Christian Republican.

    Those awards? They’re just handed out by the National Republican Congressional Committee to people who have supported the Republican party.

    And anyone can be a “friend” to any of the organizations that are listed. Just send ‘em some money.

    And if you go to his website, other than Broe v. Reed, you won’t find any mention of a single accomplishment of his as an attorney.

    Under “Publications” there are only references to six articles about global warming published at the “CO2 HOG” website, however they have all been removed, stating:

    As per the request of the Author “Stephen Pidgeon” the following has been removed, as not to conflict with upcoming book.

    That was over a year ago, so it seems he never quite got ’round to publishing that book.

    Oh yeah, and two articles from 2004 published on World Net Daily’s website, where he is described as:

    …an evangelical Christian, political gadfly, reformed libertarian, business consultant, lawyer, entrepreneur, professional musician and short-term missionary to the former USSR who now lives in the Seattle area.

    Doesn’t seem to be any real substance to the guy. Or as my grandfather used to say, a whole lotta choppin’, but no chips flyin’.

    k

  20. Anonymous says:

    “If it [Broe v. Reed] is not heard, then we know exactly where the Supreme Court stands on “standing”, and therefore we should begin a campaign to get them removed from the bench for lack of understanding of what STANDING means.”

    Since Reed did not raise standing as a defense, the Wash. Sup. Ct. did not deny the petition on that basis, so SCOTUS will not be reviewing standing in that case.

    “There are any number of valid state actors who would be logical recipients of such information.”

    What law in effect during the presidental election required Obama to submit proof of eligibility? You can’t make up requirements as you go, and then fault him for failing these nonexistent requirements.

    “Furthermore at least one federal court has given him the opportunity to be forthcoming and he has chosen to spit in the face thereof.”

    Courts don’t “give” opportunities; they rule on the requests made by the litigants. As no court has ever ordered Obama to produce anything, he hasn’t spit in anyone’s face thereof.

    “becuse his Mother was not of sufficeit age to give him her citizenship by laws at the time of his birth”

    Obama was born in Hawaii, which automically makes him a U.S. citizen.

    “he was adopted by Soetoro and registered in Indonesia”

    There’s no proof he was ever adopted; Indonesia school papers are not proof of adoption.

  21. Anonymous says:

    @7:02, any attorney who says they have a “Juris Doctorate” is incompetent and should be disbarred. The degree is a Juris Doctor. If they can’t even get that sort of basic detail right-it literally says on the degree “Juris Doctor,” how the hell are they going to get briefs and arguments right?

  22. Sharon2 says:

    Juris Doctor is interchangeable with Juris Doctorate. Google is a pretty handy tool. Are you aware that you are using “they” as a singular generic personal pronoun? The problem is easily correctable by rewriting your comment to say “attorneys who say they have … “
    (check out Grammar Girl)

  23. sargemsb says:

    Nobody seems to be aware that Osama Hussein Obama (OHO) was in the United States for college on a student visa. He would not have needed such a visa if he were a Natural Born Citizen of the USA. Somebody needs to do some research at the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act.

Speak Your Mind

*