Shocker: Berg lawsuit denied by Supreme Court

posted at 9:45 am on January 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I haven’t seen any reporting on this development, but Philip Berg announced late yesterday that the Supreme Court has refused to hear his lawsuit on Barack Obama’s status as a natural-born citizen.  Berg provides no links to any opinion, but the court docket shows that they indeed denied him certiorari.  Berg doesn’t sound happy, needless to say:

Berg said, “I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution.

I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out.  The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.

Really?  And here I thought that was the one involving the eye on the back of the one-dollar bill.  Or perhaps the “culture of corruption” argument the Democrats used in 2006 to pretend that all corruption was Republican while one of their Congressmen hid $90,000 of kickback cash in his freezer.  Or the JFK assassination conspiracy theories.  Or, for that matter, Berg’s own 9/11 Trutherism.

Berg swears to continue the fight, apparently with the same enthusiasm he uses to convince people that the government really masterminded the attacks in New York City and Washington DC.  He’s preparing a number of other legal challenges that will go exactly nowhere, including a lawsuit from a military officer challenging Obama’s legal authority to act as Commander in Chief.  These will make for great reading and long comment threads on slow news days, but otherwise will be entirely pointless except as a commercial enterprise for Berg.

Hopefully, whatever opinion was generated from this denial will shortly become available.  In the interim, one can guess that it amounted to, “You have got to be kidding me.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Again…just release the original. Whats the problem?

If you’re Obama, there isn’t one. If you’re a nirth certifikit troofer, it’s probably a much longer list.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 7:01 AM

Obama ….was born here,

AprilOrit on January 14, 2009 at 2:02 AM

Born here or there, it doesn’t explain why “The One” is acting like a immature little prick.

Again…does anyone know if “O” refuses to “release” the records, or if its just procedure?. If its just normal procedure, then he’s just being a twit…but that doesn’t explain why he refuses to release any of his records.. Occidental..Columbia..Harvard..Medical records..etc. Whats up with that? The least that should be expected of someone who is the Prez is to act like a grown up adult and knock off the “nah nah, nahnanahna..I don’t have to” bullshit.
Again…would you release the above records..forget the BC…the others? What would your motivation be to not release them?

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 8:58 AM

If you’re Obama, there isn’t one.
Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 7:01 AM

Apparently there is.

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Apparently there is.

You mean he’s not gonna be POTUS? Or that he’s gonna have a bunch of his political adversaries making fools of themselves for the foreseeable future?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Is his name Soetoro or Obama? I think Usurper has a nice ring to it. Oh well, it doesn’t matter what you call it, it still stinks.

DanaSmiles on January 14, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Again…would you release the above records..forget the BC…the others? What would your motivation be to not release them?

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 8:58 AM

It is obvious you are not an attorney…for the same reason that Bush did not release phone logs to the Congress when they voted to have them released…it is called “discovery”, look it up, it may save your *ss someday when someone falsely accuses you.

right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 9:32 AMYou mean he’s not gonna be POTUS? Or that he’s gonna have a bunch of his political adversaries making fools of themselves for the foreseeable future?

Not really..how did you come up with that based on my post? You seem to be reading tings into something thats not there…kinda of conspiracy-ish.

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM

It is obvious you are not an attorney…for the same reason that Bush did not release phone logs to the Congress when they voted to have them released…it is called “discovery”, look it up, it may save your *ss someday when someone falsely accuses you.

right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Your analogy is way way off base imo. What are the similarities?

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Not really..how did you come up with that based on my post?

OK, let me show you my math. I said:

If you’re Obama, there isn’t one.(problem)

Then you said:

Apparently there is.

Then I speculated as to what the problems for him might be.
You’re saying there a problem for Obama. Why don’t you tell us what it is. Tell us why he should give even a little tiny damn about satisfying you, Berg, Donofrio or any other BC troofer, given that he’s already presented his perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable proof of his Hawaiian birth. Where the downside to him mocking this stuff, outright dismissing it or doing both?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM

It seems that you’re either missing the point, or are being willfully deflective.

Here..let me show you my math.

Obama doesn’t want to release his record from Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, medical records, or vault copy of BC.

Apparently he has a problem with them being public.

Simply stating something, i.e. “he has no problem with it”..does not make it true.

But maybe I’m missing something.
What would your reasons be to with hold your records from the pubic, in the context of you being a public servant?

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Your analogy is way way off base imo. What are the similarities?

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 10:31 AM

The fact that you can’t see the similarities, only proves my point…

right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM

If you’re Obama, there isn’t one. If you’re a nirth certifikit troofer, it’s probably a much longer list.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 7:01 AM

Uh, you do realize that there are still ongoing court cases? And that there are others waiting in the wings until he signs his first executive order?

I know for a fact that there are military officers, who know about this, and are disturbed by it, and under their oath, to defend the CONSTITUTION against enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC, are contemplating legal action…

He could easily take this whole thing off the table by releasing his birth cert… why create potential legal problems for yourself when you don’t need to? ESPECIALY NOW, AFTER the Election?

If there was somthing embarasing in his birth cert, now, during the Press honeymoon period, would be the perfect time to get this out of the way… it would be buried under the coverage of the inaguration…

Ever have kids? You can often tell when they have done somthing wrong by how hard they try NOT to tell you what happened… they pause… they won’t come up with facts… and then their whole story unravels…

Thats what I think is in play here. Many of us now see this behaviour in our soon to be President, and wonder what the heck he is hideing…

Romeo13 on January 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM

What would your reasons be to with hold your records from the pubic, in the context of you being a public servant?

Why would I release personal information that I don’t need to release, especially when there’s no downside to not doing it?

I’d particularly like to see his Columbia transcripts, but I don’t have a right to them.

So, let me ask you again, since you didn’t answer my question: How is any of this a problem for Obama? Why should he care?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM

You obviously aren’t either. With discovery, certain documentation is privileged and not subject to discovery depending on the issue. Lawyers are allowed to keep the discovery process as unrevealing as possible. In Obama’s case the court never got to the point to where his lawyers were ordered to produce this document. This single document is the issue and there are legal reasons why is hasn’t been voluntarily released to the public – they just don’t have to. The court never ordered Obama to release his birth certificate yet (as far as we know). If or when this happens they will still fight it, which just adds more doubt on the issue.

To me, this has some substance because Obama’s past is so convoluted, I don’t blame US citizens for questioning this. They have a right to and it’s interesting that the MSM is relatively silent on this issue, while still reporting on Palin child with down syndrome as if that has any type of impact on the country.

This Obama issue isn’t even a conspiracy – it’s just a legitimate question – where was he born and is he Constitutionally eligible to be president? None of these questions were seriously answered and the first site of his ‘certificate’ was on DailyKos or the Obama team gave it to that website to produce. Some Israeli investigators kept screen shots of the thread when it was first hosted on DailyKos and that person admitted that it was easy to forge and then posted some other certificates using that same template.

When carefully reading the words of the Hawaiian officials they carefully never said he was born in Hawaii, just that his certificate was legitimate to paraphrase. Saying this does not say he was born in Hawaii. Someone posted the rules for obtaining this particular certification and it does say that you can be from another country and still get this type of certification to be a citizen of Hawaii.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist or a ‘truther’, but this really doesn’t sit well. It won’t go away and its interesting how its written off just because this Berg character has to do with it, others have filed similar suits that probably aren’t ‘truthers’.

Indy928 on January 14, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Uh, you do realize that there are still ongoing court cases?

And? Is he a defendant in them?

And that there are others waiting in the wings until he signs his first executive order?

At which point you’ll have the DOJ defending them? That ought to go well for the plaintiffs.

He could easily take this whole thing off the table by releasing his birth cert… why create potential legal problems for yourself when you don’t need to?

He’s already done so to the satisfaction of any government agency for any person in any situation, including this one, judging by the legal results. That you or anyone else thinks there’s another document that might contain something embarrassing and therefore politically useful is utterly irrelevant and does not create an entitlement to it. If you think otherwise, file your case and subpoena that doc from the State of Hawaii. Why doesn’t anyone just do that and save themselves all this legal trouble?

Next, what makes you think that if the State of HI released the original doc tomorrow that this would put the troofers to rest? Why encourage them?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM

You’re saying there a problem for Obama

Well, thats the problem. You misinterpreted the idea.

I’m saying that there is a problem with Obama’s practice of with holding information…not a problem for Obama.

Do you understand the difference?

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The fact that you can’t see the similarities, only proves my point…

right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM

You must be a lawyer..you dodge and deflect.

Educate me. What are the similarities as you see them.

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Why would I release personal information that I don’t need to release, especially when there’s no downside to not doing it?

I’d particularly like to see his Columbia transcripts, but I don’t have a right to them.

So, let me ask you again, since you didn’t answer my question: How is any of this a problem for Obama? Why should he care?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Answering a question with a question = no answer at all, in most cases, but an attempt to deflect.

You’re not understanding the context of my question.
I asked “Why would you refuse to release your records, in the context of being a public servant..not Joe Schmoe.

So, let me ask you again, since you didn’t answer my question: How is any of this a problem for Obama? Why should he care?

Again…because he’s a public servant, and when you get the public to trust and vote for you on the basis of a “new way for politis”, and “transparency”..and “accountability”..and “openness”, he should care when right out of the gate, he’s looking like a hypocrite.

An equal question to you is ..why should he care if they’re made public?..he’s a public servant.

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Good point – transparency. You see, there is never a problem for Obama. Any potential problems and previously existing ones are quickly sugar coated and/or ignored until it goes away. As we have seen over and over through his political career, the election process and will see in his upcoming presidency.

Indy928 on January 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I’m saying that there is a problem with Obama’s practice of with holding information…not a problem for Obama.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes. One is your opinion, the other is an obvious reality. There is no upside to releasing all of this information. If there’s a “problem” with Obama doing so, that’s it. That it is a “problem” is your opinion.

As for the other, there is no downside to not releasing it, an objectively observable fact. Which is to say that there is no problem. In fact, there’s an upside. Those who vocally and legally insist on things they have no right to look foolish and give credence to the idea of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Thanks a lot. Big help.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM

As a practicing lawyer (aren’t I special), it is very common to allege facts in a lawsuit that you suspect are true even though you have no evidence with which to prove it. There is nothing wrong with that as long as there is some basis in fact to the allegation, and the allegation is being made in good faith. Then if the facts AS ALLEGED in complaint can result in relief, the plaintiff is entitled to discovery to try to prove the facts. The plaintiff gets to issue subpoenas and take depositions under oath, etc. If the discovery finds evidence to support the allegations, the case proceeds to trial. If the allegations do not pan out, the case will either be dismissed by the Plaintiff or the court after a motion for summary judgment.

Setting the standing issue aside, the problem I have with how these cases are being treated is that the cases allege facts that could result in Obama being disqualified. These cases allege that Obama was born in Kenya — that would legally disqualify him. These cases allege that Obama was an Indonesian citizen as an adult — that would legally disqualify him. Those facts may be unlikely, but they are plausible and asserted in good faith. His grandmother claims he was born in Kenya and he was enrolled in school as an Indonesian citizen. It might all be BS, but we do not know until after discovery is taken. The allegations state a viable claim. We need discovery to be conducted and we need a court to address the claims on the merits. Nothing could be more fundamental to our system of law.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 11:43 AM

For whatever reasons, right2bright (as well as our host here) is convinced that anyone who questions whether Obama is a natural-born citizen is a total lunatic.

I guess because right2bright is personally convinced that he is a natural-born citizen. (Along with our host, and others.)

That is fine, and lots of people are convinced of that.

But lots of people are not convinced, and for very good reasons.

Right2bright thinks it is totally obvious that everyone should see it the way he/she does, and simply cannot stand the fact that anyone doesn’t.

He is so convinced of his/her rightness on this matter, that he casts about for reasons WHY any rational person would question it, and comes up with ideas like the people who question it have been planted by the opposition to distract. Or that, in any case, it is a harmful distraction.

Being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, I feel no need to shut out these questions from my mind for fear that I won’t be able to focus on other issues.

Being a rational, logical and educated person, I simply can’t dismiss these questions until they are answered to their logical conclusion, regardless of how lathered right2bright and others become in their insistence that I should.

I feel sorry for those who stoop to name-calling when another person refuses to see it their way. It’s unfortunate when an individual believes that others with a different view – based on logic and reason – must be conspiracy theorists or idiots.

It indicates a lack of ability to see both sides of an issue, as well as a stubborn refusal to do so.

Right2bright and others make good points, and I’ve certainly taken them into consideration. However, they are not the only good points.

This issue will never go away until Obama himself makes it go away, which he will apparently never do. Which brings us again to the question: Why not?

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM

You’re not understanding the context of my question.
I asked “Why would you refuse to release your records, in the context of being a public servant..not Joe Schmoe.

No, you’re not understanding my answer: there’s no reason to release any more than he has. It does nothing for him, especially now that he’s going to be inaugurated in 6 days. What is it going to get him? TWO inaugurations?

Again…because he’s a public servant, and when you get the public to trust and vote for you on the basis of a “new way for politis”, and “transparency”..and “accountability”..and “openness”, he should care when right out of the gate, he’s looking like a hypocrite.

People who didn’t believe that campaign rhetoric (Like, when we heard all the lies about Wright and Trinity) are not the least bit surprised and people who did believe it don’t care. Do you really think you’re going to sway an Obamabot with nirth certfikit trooferism? Do you really think that any of these suits are going to prevail?

Let. It. Go.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM

tommylotto, thanks for the informative post. This case has never went to discovery stage yet, has it ?

This issue is nothing like the ‘inside job’ claims by truthers, in my opinion.

Indy928 on January 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Do you really think that any of these suits are going to prevail? Let. It. Go.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I know your comment was not addressed to me, but I for one do not think they will prevail. Nevertheless, understanding how our justice system is suppose to work, Berg, et al deserve a right to try to prove their allegations. For me, this is about process and rule of law.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I’d particularly like to see his Columbia transcripts, but I don’t have a right to them.

I wonder what is the point in not releasing them. I would be proud to release my school transcripts.

Didn’t he supposedly make good grades? Tell me, what is the point in not releasing them?

Could it be that he was registered as a foreign student?

Or did he write a thesis on destroying capitalism or something?

Or did he take classes in Marxism? Or what?

It is not irrational to wonder why.

I would posit that it is irrational to NOT wonder why. It means you have to wave your hands a lot and insist that it doesn’t matter and he doesn’t HAVE to, so therefore (somehow) he shouldn’t, or that legal minds don’t volunteer any information, or whatever.

Rather than just admit to yourself – this smells fishy.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM

It might all be BS, but we do not know until after discovery is taken.

Yes, we do.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Didn’t he supposedly make good grades? Tell me, what is the point in not releasing them?

Tell me why he should. Will it get him elected? Oh, wait…

Could it be that he was registered as a foreign student?

Highly improbable.

Or did he write a thesis on destroying capitalism or something?

Could be.

Or did he take classes in Marxism? Or what?

Maybe. But I’m more interested in the fact that no one seems to remember him from Columbia. I wonder why that is. But I have no right, nor do you, to those documents. And I fail to see, as I’m sure Obama does, how releasing them helps him even if they’re squeaky clean.

How much did releasing his military records help Bush? Damned little.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Yes. One is your opinion, the other is an obvious reality. There is no upside to releasing all of this information. If there’s a “problem” with Obama doing so, that’s it. That it is a “problem” is your opinion.

As for the other, there is no downside to not releasing it, an objectively observable fact. Which is to say that there is no problem. In fact, there’s an upside. Those who vocally and legally insist on things they have no right to look foolish and give credence to the idea of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Thanks a lot. Big help.

Pablo, I noticed you made this point before.

In fact, there is a downside to not releasing any of this information. For example, all these threads, all those lawsuits going on, and so forth and so on.

And, most importantly, it costs him trust. Secrecy does that.

Why all the secrecy? There’s something wrong with someone who doesn’t ask that question, imo.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 12:02 PM

In fact, there is a downside to not releasing any of this information. For example, all these threads, all those lawsuits going on, and so forth and so on.

And that impacts Obama how, exactly? On the contrary, it does more to discredit The Messiah’s opposition than it does Obama. And that there’s a full blown 9/11 truther at the center of it just adds that extra zest of zero credibility to the whole thing.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Indy928 on January 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM

There has been discovery sought by the Plaintiffs in these cases, but Obama and company have refused to respond, and the Courts have backed him up and not required discovery.

With all due respect to Hot Air, LGF, MM, et al comparing people questioning Obama’s “natural born” status to conspiracy theorists is tantamount to an ad hominem attack. A conspiracy theorist disputes the official findings of public investigations such as the Warren Report on the Kennedy Assassination or the 9/11 Commission Report. As far as I know, there has been no official investigation whatsoever into the allegations that Obama was born in Kenya or was an Indonesian citizen as an adult. Once there is an official investigation and official findings, you can call the nirth certfikit troofers tin foil hat wearers, but until then you are just being an a$$.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Yes, a conspiracy theorist disputes official findings and records. Like the ones about Obama not being born in Hawaii and the moon landing.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:10 PM

BTW,

A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was, or is, represented as the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. The phrase is also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray a person or group’s views as being untrue or outlandish.

No investigation necessary.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM

BTW, do you see that notation at the bottom of Obama’s COLB? “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”

The number of people who would have to be involved in both faking Obama’s data in the HI files and in continuing to conceal that fakery, all of whom would have to be maintaining their silence, makes this a classic conspiracy theory.

Let. It. Go.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Maybe. But I’m more interested in the fact that no one seems to remember him from Columbia. I wonder why that is. But I have no right, nor do you, to those documents. And I fail to see, as I’m sure Obama does, how releasing them helps him even if they’re squeaky clean.

There are a whole lot of things we don’t have a legal right to. Nonetheless, we tend to want to know things about our public officials, especially the president.

For example: We have no legal right whatsoever to know anything about the President’s family.

Yet, people would think it strange, would they not, if for some reason the family were kept hidden? People would start to wonder what is amiss.

(Do not come to me about the impossibility of keeping a family hidden. Take the example at its face value.)

Releasing records is an indication of openness and trustworthiness. Refusing to release things others have is an indication of the opposite.

If you can’t grasp that, then oh well.

About the friends at Columbia, by the way – I found a piece online once (sorry, didn’t keep the url) where they were interviewing several people who knew him at college.

So I don’t think that business about “no one knew him at college” is accurate.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I normally respect Patterico, but he got that wrong. In the post you cited Patterico claims that Obama released his birth certificate, when in fact he released a certification of live birth — and you know the difference or at least know the arguments. He also claims that the Hawaiian officials confirmed that his birth certificate states he was born in Hawaii — once again, you know that is not accurate or at least you know the arguments.

Patterico is not dispositive on this issue, because he has not looked at the issue close enough. However, even if everything Patterico says was true and we have a valid birth certificate on file saying Obama was born in Hawaii, that would not and should not be the end of it. A vital record only creates a presumption that the information is true. A presumption can be overcome by other evidence. I doubt it would be overcome, but who knows until discovery is taken. Also, even if he has a birth certificate, if he was an Indonesian citizen as an adult, he would have renounced his US citizenship. So, we need to conduct discovery, look at the US and Indonesian state department files. Did BO have an indonesian passport as an adult?

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 12:19 PM

And that impacts Obama how, exactly? On the contrary, it does more to discredit The Messiah’s opposition than it does Obama. And that there’s a full blown 9/11 truther at the center of it just adds that extra zest of zero credibility to the whole thing.

Let me try this one more time.

It only impacts him if he cares about what people think, or wants to have the most people on his side as possible.

Each of us is a person who makes determinations on who we want and don’t want leading us. I’m such a person.

I’m not “the messiah’s opposition” – I am a person. One who started out, by the way, quite favorably deposed toward Obama, and likely to vote for him.

He lost me, for reasons that would include (but predate) this sort of thing.

Now you may not think that will hurt him at all, and it may not. But I figure if enough people decide they don’t like him or don’t trust him, then he will either be voted out of power or have to keep power by force.

So yes, I think it is important for a politician to be open and above-board about his life, especially regarding simple things like a $12 birth certificate, or college records.

If they can’t be, then damned if I’m going to trust them.

Now, if it doesn’t matter to him who supports him and who doesn’t (and it very likely may not), then how he behaves doesn’t matter either.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM

BTW, do you see that notation at the bottom of Obama’s COLB? “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM

prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.”

What? You mean in the case of Obama only, no one gets a chance to rebut?

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 12:25 PM

BTW, do you see that notation at the bottom of Obama’s COLB? “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”

The number of people who would have to be involved in both faking Obama’s data in the HI files and in continuing to conceal that fakery, all of whom would have to be maintaining their silence, makes this a classic conspiracy theory.

As I understand it, yes, it is evidence of a fact of birth.

But as I understand it, you can be born somewhere else and still obtain one of these, showing that you were born in Hawaii.

So – no conspiracy, fakery, code of silence, or whatever needed in that case.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 12:28 PM

You mean in the case of Obama only, no one gets a chance to rebut?

And what would it be rebutted with? Hearsay that he was born in Kenya?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Not exactly. You could not get a birth certificate to indicate Honolulu as the place of birth if you were born overseas without some fakery. BO’s parents or grandparents would have had to lie to the Hawaiian state officials back in 1961 about where BO was born. However, that is not some vast conspiracy, and similar fakery happens everyday in East Los Angeles where immigrants lie about where a baby is born to afford the baby the franchise of US citizenship.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM

You seem to have a real comprehension problem…but that to be expected.

There is no point in trying to engage you in any perspectives that are not part of your rigid mindset imo.

Live long and prosper V.

Itchee Dryback on January 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Alana,

But as I understand it, you can be born somewhere else and still obtain one of these, showing that you were born in Hawaii.

No. You can get one of these, but it will say when and where you were born. They do not and will not invent a Hawaiian birth.

Now you may not think that will hurt him at all, and it may not.

The man just won the most decisive electoral victory in the last 20 years. Assuming he runs again in 4 years, he’ll be running on his record in office, not his BC or his Columbia transcripts. This stuff doesn’t hurt him at all.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:43 PM

And what would it be rebutted with? Hearsay that he was born in Kenya?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM

How about eye witness testimony from his grandmother saying “I was there when little Urkel was born. He was born in Kenya!” That testimony is apparently out there. It may or may not be credible. That is why we need discovery. Who knows what else we might find — Kenyan birth records, suspicious amendments to the original Hawaiian BC, an attending physician with a fictitious name — who knows until there is discovery and an investigation?

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM

A presumption can be overcome by other evidence. I doubt it would be overcome, but who knows until discovery is taken. Also, even if he has a birth certificate, if he was an Indonesian citizen as an adult, he would have renounced his US citizenship. So, we need to conduct discovery, look at the US and Indonesian state department files. Did BO have an indonesian passport as an adult?

Do you have any admissible evidence to suggest that any of these things are true? If not, no judge in their right mind is going to allow your suit to proceed so that you can conduct a fishing expedition.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM

How about eye witness testimony from his grandmother saying “I was there when little Urkel was born. He was born in Kenya!” That testimony is apparently out there.

Have you seen an affidavit to that effect? A court transcript? If not, then what you have is someone saying that she said it. And what does the law say about such second/third/fourth statements in regard to ascertaining the truth of a fact?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Do you have any admissible evidence to suggest that any of these things are true? If not, no judge in their right mind is going to allow your suit to proceed so that you can conduct a fishing expedition.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM

There are the school records from Indonesia showing Obama enrolled as an Indonesian citizen. And Obama himself claimed to have traveled to Pakistan as an adult to visit his mother at a time when the US state department discouraged US citizen to travel there. There are plenty of unknowns, but I would not characterize it as a fishing expedition. There is a official school record saying he is an Indonesian citizen!

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Have you seen an affidavit to that effect? A court transcript? If not, then what you have is someone saying that she said it. And what does the law say about such second/third/fourth statements in regard to ascertaining the truth of a fact?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I have read a declaration of a Anabaptist Bishop who translated the Swahili statement of Obama’s Grandmother. Sounds a little kooky to me, but this is pre-discovery. Let’s issue some subpoenas and take some depositions under oath. There is at least enough there to give rise to the good faith allegation that Obama was born in Kenya.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Yeah, what she said!

BobAnthony on January 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM

There are the school records from Indonesia showing Obama enrolled as an Indonesian citizen.

Which is proof of something having been written in a school record. What it isn’t is proof, in any way, shape or form, that he isn’t a natural born American citizen. So, that doesn’t rebut his COLB.

And Obama himself claimed to have traveled to Pakistan as an adult to visit his mother at a time when the US state department discouraged US citizen to travel there.

And? State discourages travel to a lot of places. There are very few the law forbids travel to, and traveling to them doesn’t change your citizenship.

I have read a declaration of a Anabaptist Bishop who translated the Swahili statement of Obama’s Grandmother. Sounds a little kooky to me, but this is pre-discovery.

Sounds like hearsay to me, and thus it’s inadmissible. Now if you can get Granny to state, under oath, the The One was born in Kenya, you might have cause to proceed. Good luck with that, and let us know when it happens.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Pablo, you are not following. You do not need to prove a case BEFORE you file it. You can allege anything so long as it is alleged in good faith, and then seek to prove it later during the course of the litigation. The school records would probably be admissible as a business record exception to the hearsay rule, but that is not the point. The point is that there are sufficient facts that we know (grandmother claims Kenya as his birth place and school records identify him as an Indonesian citizen) that the allegations have been made in good faith. At the outset of the litigation (the demurrer stage), all the allegations are presumed to be true, and the case can only be thrown out if even if the allegations are true the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief.

The only reason (apart from standing) why these cases should be dismissed prior to discovery being conducted is if the Court determined that as a matter of law Obama is a natural born citizen — even if he was born in Kenya AND Obama is a natural born citizen — even if he was a citizen of Indonesia as an adult. No court has or can find as such. Therefore, I believe one of these case must be afforded the right of discovery to prove or disprove the allegations.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Pablo, you are not following. You do not need to prove a case BEFORE you file it. You can allege anything so long as it is alleged in good faith, and then seek to prove it later during the course of the litigation.

You do have to show that your allegations have some merit, or your suit gets tossed for lack thereof.

Therefore, I believe one of these case must be afforded the right of discovery to prove or disprove the allegations.

Why do you suppose that no one has found a court that agrees with that? You need to make a reasonable showing that you can prove your case and thus far you’ve got zilch. Your case hinges completely on what you might discover, and no judge is going to allow you to proceed on that.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Pablo, I’m about to give up on you as a lost cause.

You do have to show that your allegations have some merit, or your suit gets tossed for lack thereof

That depends on what you mean by “merit”. You do not have to show your allegations are true to survive the pleading stage and get to discovery. All that you have to show it that if your allegations are true, you would be entitled to relief as a matter of law. Only in rare instances will a court disregard sham allegations when the allegations are easily refuted by matter of which the court can take judicial notice. The court could take judicial notice of Obama’s Hawaiian COLB, but on its face the COLB only creates a rebuttable presumption, it does not create an unassailable proven fact. You still need discovery. What does the grandmother really have to say? Could the COLB be falsified? Was the original BC modified? Inquiring minds want to know, and only discovery will answer the questions.

Why do you suppose that no one has found a court that agrees with that? You need to make a reasonable showing that you can prove your case and thus far you’ve got zilch. Your case hinges completely on what you might discover, and no judge is going to allow you to proceed on that.

No case has been decided on the merits. The cases have all been dismissed for lack of standing or for being premature. Eventually someone will have standing (a federal employee fired by BO?) and it will not be premature after BO starts to sign executive orders. Eventually, a court will need to address the merits. Those of you wishing this would go away, should agree with me. Allow a case to go through with discovery, have a Court decide it on the merits, appeal it to the Supreme Court and have the justices issue a unanimous decision finding he is a natural born citizen. After that, it will be over. Anyone who questions Obama’s legitimacy after that can safely be declared a conspiracy nut.

tommylotto on January 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM

All that you have to show it that if your allegations are true, you would be entitled to relief as a matter of law.

So if you allege (in good faith because you heard a rumor) that Obama was born on Pluto, you’re not going to get laughed out of court in summary judgment? Yes, you are. That’s just slightly more implausible than this case. And as an added bonus, this reflects on those making the allegations about as well as the TANG nonsense did.

Let. It. Go.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4