Sunday, November 09, 2008

Supreme Court to Determine Legality of Berg v. Obama UPDATED - MUST READ!

My thanks go to Jim Leasure of Journaling For Growth blog for pointing out a message forum that contained some really good links, commentary, explanations, and "what will happen" speculation regarding the ongoing controversy over Barack Obama's place of birth.

In the comment section of a previous post, Jim wrote:



jeleasure said...
Christine!!!!!
Check this story out.
This is from Sean Osborn of the North East Intelligence Network.
Obama Must Provide a Vaulted Copy by 1 December 2008

What is different now is the fact that the situation no longer involves Berg vs. Obama. With Justice Souter requiring the vault long official COLB to be shown to him at the U.S. Supreme Court, it has now become a case of the U.S. Supreme Court vs. Obama!

From NEIN blog:

[Update: Update 10 November 2008: Three items of direct relevance to this subject were just brought to my attention. First item is the draft of a WeThePeople Foundation full-page ad to be published inUSA TODAY the week of November 17, 2008. The second item is a petition to the Federal Election Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States which citizen patriots can sign (anonymously if desired) and submit to become personally engaged in this issue.]

"...has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

[Note: Update at 6:27 p.m. PT:

What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Judge Surrick, who presides over the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, must respond to the Writ of Certiorari (sur-shee-uh-rare-eye) by providing to SCOTUS Justice Souter all documents and court proceedings in the case of Berg v. Obama. The crux of the matter here is that Obama (et al.) filed only a motion to dismiss on the grounds on Phil Berg's "lack of standing" to file the lawsuit. No information countering Berg's allegations or challenges to Obama's status as a natural born citizen were addressed. Judge Surrick agreed with the Obama motion and dismissed the case due to Berg's "lack of standing." Justice Souter will most certainly see the specific challenge to Obama's eligibilty pursuant to the Constitutional requirement for president and subsequently may then issue an order for Obama (et al.) to submit docmentation proving his natural born citizenship status to Judge Surrick, or to provide them directly to the SCOTUS.]



A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reasons. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."


Obama isn't getting out of this one!

I have previously expressed concern over the premature briefings that Obama is being allowed to attend with the Bush Admin. Sounds like a serious mistake to me!

Here is a copy of the rest of Sean Osborne's blog post:

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reasons. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."


What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.


Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.


The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature.


Note this additional comment. It points out that Obama is not OFFICIALLY President-elect until "the Electoral College electors cast their ballots on 15DEC08."

Sean Osborne:

I definitely need to expound for everyone on the very profound implications of what I have written in this NEIN Blog entry.

First, look at and read carefully the words seen in the image. [Note - it reads: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.] What is stated there is the function of the federal judiciary, particularly and pentultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no higher leagal authority in the U.S. Government.

Obama [or his lawyer(s)] MUST respond no later than 1 DEC to the SCOTUS-granted Writ of Certiorari.

VERY, VERY FEW writs of this type are ever granted by SCOTUS.

This writ was granted due to some very compelling reasons - the number one reason hinges on whether Obama is Constitutionally elibible to hold the office of POTUS.

Obama MUST respond NLT 01DEC08.

Obama has two options in his response.

1. Tell the SCOTUS to take a flying leap by repeating his non-response to the federal court in PA or by asking for dismissal.

This is NOT a viable option for Obama to take. Remember your elementary, high school and college-level "Government 101" class education on the three co-equal branches of our government. Would Obama dare to tick-off deluxe the currently Conservative majority in the SCOTUS? He might, but, again, that course of action is highly inadvisable. I can conceive that should Obama flip the court the bird that the SCOTUS would then hold Obama in contempt and subpoena his vault birth certificate from the State of Hawai'i. Then the fight would really be on.

2. Comply and provide exactly what is requested of him in the Writ.

Obama is between a rock and a hard place IF there is no legal proof that he was born in Hawai'i. Evidence and legal proceedings to date strongly indicate that this is the fact of the matter.

Barack Obama IS NOT the President-elect. NOT YET. Obama does not become President-elect until the Electoral College electors cast their ballots on 15DEC08.

Which occurs first - Supreme Court proceedings, of the Electoal College voting?

The Electoral College electors in the various states do not have to vote for Obama. They can cast their votes for whomever they choose for both President and Vice President.

As I sstated the 2008 election process is not over- it is still very much an active process - with key Constitutional issues before the Supreme Court of the land.

So why is NO ONE in the MSM talking about this???


Why...INDEED!

Answer: Because they are the "Media of Mass Deception" - THAT'S WHY! However, in this case they are being also guilty of being "The Media of Omission" when it comes to anything that is negative news about Obama!

I was curious to see how many others blogs, message boards and forums were discussing this development. So, I typed into the search: "Obama vault COLB proof Dec 1."

Several hours ago, the search turned up 638 possible matches.

Since it has been a busy Sunday for me, I haven't gotten the chance to get through many of the pages. However, there are some good links on the first three pages.

Just now, I was curious to see what came up when I took out the word "vault." Got 2,020 matches this time.

There are probably lots of combinations of key words that can be typed in.

One thing is certain. Word is spreading about this - and this time Obama must comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's request.

HT: Jim Leasure of Journaling for Growth
The NEIN blog

*******
Update: Another great post about this is found over at Citizen Wells

*******
UPdate: Digg story.

*******

UPdate on 11/10/08 @ 8:30 a.m. PT

The more digging I do on this subject - the more evidence arises that IS SO VERY DISTURBING!!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS POST:

Judge Surrick Received the Decision He Issued

Excerpt:

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.


Here's a link to the blow-up copy of the fax:

Surrick's Ruling Fax Copy

Excerpt continued:

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.

Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.


Continue reading HERE

People...THIS IS GETTING REALLY FRIGHTENING and doesn't smell right - AT ALL!!! I have been thinking all along, but hesitant to say a particular word. But more and more evidence of legal manipulations and illegal thugary is revealing a HUGE CONSPIRACY behind the Obama campaign!

*******
FYI Update:

What is a Writ of Certiorari?
A writ of certiorari is a writ, or order, sent from a higher court to a lower one which orders the lower court to turn over transcripts and documents related to a specific case for review. In general, a writ of certiorari is issued by the highest court in a nation after a request from a petitioner. The decision to grant such a writ is made at judicial discretion.

The term comes from a Latin word which means “to be ascertained” or “to make certain.” A writ of certiorari is one of the ways in which a high court can review a case. When a petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari, the request must include an explanation of why the petitioner is resorting to a writ. The request must also indicate what in the case is under dispute, so that justices are aware of what they are being asked to review.

When a request for a writ of certiorari is submitted to a high court, clerks review it before passing it on to the justices. The justices vote on which cases shall be granted writs. In the United States, less than 5% of the requests for a writ of certiorari are granted, due to the high volume of requests and the busy court schedule. In Supreme Court shorthand, this is a “Cert. Denied.” When a writ is denied, it does necessarily mean that the higher court approves of the actions of the lower court, and the denial cannot be viewed as the court's final statement on the issue.

Since most high courts are responsible for interpreting and defending national constitutions and the law, justices tend to grant writs for controversial cases, or cases which may set a precedent. Once a lower court has been served with a writ of certiorari, it must turn the requested material over to the higher court. After review, the justices offer a decision on the material, either affirming the decision of the lower court, or rejecting it. In most cases, and majority and minority both submit a written opinion of the case.

Petitioners should consider a writ of certiorari a technique of last resort. Since the writ must include a reason why the petitioner has no other avenue of redress, it is important to explore all of the ways in which a legal problem can be addressed before submitting it to the highest court. In most nations, the judicial system has a tiered appeals process which should be followed first, in addition to other legal means which a lawyer may suggest.

Written by S.E. Smith

(bold mine)

34 comments:

jeleasure said...

Christine,
You did an excellent job in tying things together.
We have seen so much bullet dodging during this campaign season. It has become business as usual to see Obama go unapproached by the media. For the network that asked Joe Biden to answer to Obama's socialistic policies, and Biden asked in return, "Is this a real question? Is this a joke?" that network or news affiliate has been banned from ever being acknowledged by a representitive of Obama.
Now, what I do understand, is that four of the Supreme Court Justices are not supporters of Obama and have pledged to resign if Obama becomes President. (I believe this was reported as such from American Family Association). If I error, please fill me in. However, if this information is correct, I can not see unanimous favortism coming from the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Law. Grant that I do not see there is any room for interpretation. Lately, I have been seeing a lot of interpretations and head turning considering this guy. In fact, McCain did call Obama in a campaign ad that announced the money Obama was able to illegally misappropriate from Illinoise tax payers to Obama's friends and family.
What next?!
Thanks for the work you do. I appreciate someone who stays committed to working so much on matters that cross Christian principals and political ethics.
Thanks for the free publicity.
Jim

Christinewjc said...

Hi Jim,

Thank you for the compliment; you are welcome for the "free publicity;" and you are correct that free speech will be in jeopardy with Obama as president. The liberal Dems can't wait to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" - which is the most oxymoronic name I've ever heard for a policy. In short, they wish to shut down all conservative voices on talk radio and elsewhere. I fear that it may even extend to the Internet, and blogs like mine will be banned. Therefore, I will be actively posting on all matters important to Christians until then.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. You mentioned that four Supreme Court justices have pledged to step down if Obama becomes president? I hadn't heard that. That would be awful!!! We NEED them in there to counter the liberals!

Did you mean to say that four might likely retire? But they are supporters of Obama - I think. Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer are close to retirement age. Obama and the Dem Congress would appoint all liberal left justices. Abortion will probably be legalized in every way. Very sad and disheartening.

EVERYTHING about Obama creeps me out. He stands for everything that I am against.

Over 56 million voters apparently agree with me because they all voted for McCain/Palin.

With all of the radical associations surrounding Obama, I just never dreamed that so many people would be duped into believing his hype on the campaign trail. There have been so many scandals around this campaign, I have lost count!

The voter registration fraud, ACORN etc. has not been investigated thoroughly (IMO). You know all the rest. I don't need to list it all.

I truly believe that this Dec. 1st compliance by Obama is our only chance of knowing the truth about where he was born. All of the secrecy surrounding the vault long COLB is highly suspicious.

There is still time to prevent the disaster of an Obama presidency. I hope and pray that he is found ineligible due to not being a natural born citizen.

jeleasure said...

Hi Christine,
I listen to American Family Radio. Broadcast of the American Family Association are done on the station I listen to.
While in my work vehicle, I heard something from the radio personality of four Supreme Court Judges vowing to resign if there were an Obama administration. Now, I have not heard that since or before. So, I don't know where that came from. Now, I wish I had kept in mind what program and date I was listening to. I believe one of the personalities on the program is Rusty Benson.
I'll check into from that angle and see if I heard it correctly.
It is possible I heard something associated with the Justices retiring. That sounds likely. But, I'm not certain.. I'll check it out tomorrow.
Jim

smrstrauss said...

If you really believe that Obama was born in Kenya, all you have to do is prove that his mother was in Kenya at the time of his birth. That should be easy to do, since the records of people who arrive in Kenya are maintained by the Kenyan government.

Until then, why should the Supreme Court take the case?

Not on the basis of a tape recording of the grandmother when it is not clear that she understands the question.

spud tooley said...

when i typed in combinations of obama-souter-birth-certificate in google and live.com i was actually quite surprised to see that the only results returned were blogs...

1984?

mr

jeleasure said...

Spud Tooley wrote:

"when i typed in combinations of obama-souter-birth-certificate in google and live.com i was actually quite surprised to see that the only results returned were blogs..."

Why are you surprised? The mainstream media has not covered anything on this issue since it first broke. So, does that mean the issue does not exist?

spud tooley said...

i was surprised because it was google...

'the media isn't covering it'

and

'search engines are suppressing it'

are two different things entirely.

Christinewjc said...

Jim - just sent you an email. Actually, 6 of the same one...sorry about that! My webmail wasn't working very well but it ended up sending 5 more copies!

Write back!

Sosthenes said...

There are 2,100,000 searches but there really isn't much being discussed since October 25th or 26th..

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/216858-obama-citizenship-question-goes-to-u.s.-supreme-court

The World Net Daily article is dated Nov. 4th.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80072

Christinewjc said...

This is strange! When I clicked on the link that I had posted yesterday (the one that brought up 2,020 results) - the results have now shrunk down to 1,950!

Here - try it for your yourself!

Obama+COLB+proof+Dec+1

However, when I clicked on the Obama vault COLG proof Dec 1 search again, the results have increased to 645.

I would have expected an increase in both - wouldn't you?

Is a decrease in results on the very next day typical? What does this mean? Are links being erased by a search engine team or what?

Christinewjc said...

Now that I have had some sleep, I have been busy going through the links from the searches I did yesterday.

Here's a gem!

Christinewjc said...

Here is the crux of the matter and stresses why the American people deserve to know the truth!

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.

5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Washington State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.

5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.

5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.

5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.

5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.

5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.

5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.

5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961

5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.c. §1401(, Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.

5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.

5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.

5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.

5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:

6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.

6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.

6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Washington State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.

6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Washington State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.

7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.

7.2. Plaintiff requests Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.

7.3. Direct Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.

7.4. Plaintiff requests the Washington State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.

7.5. If Secretary Sam Reed is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Sam Reed must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;

7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven R Marquis

34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024

425-698-7084

VERIFICATION

I, STEVEN R MARQUIS, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.


Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/

Christinewjc said...

UPdate on 11/10/08 @ 8:30 a.m. PT

The more digging I do on this subject - the more evidence arises that IS SO VERY DISTURBING!!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS POST:

Judge Surrick Received the Decision He Issued

Excerpt:

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.


Here's a link to the blow-up copy of the fax:

Surrick's Ruling Fax Copy

Excerpt continued:

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.

Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.


Continue reading HERE

People...THIS IS GETTING REALLY FRIGHTENING and doesn't smell right - AT ALL!!! I have been thinking all along, but hesitant to say a particular word. But more and more evidence of legal manipulations and illegal thugary is revealing a HUGE CONSPIRACY behind the Obama campaign!

Christinewjc said...

FYI Update:

What is a Writ of Certiorari?
A writ of certiorari is a writ, or order, sent from a higher court to a lower one which orders the lower court to turn over transcripts and documents related to a specific case for review. In general, a writ of certiorari is issued by the highest court in a nation after a request from a petitioner. The decision to grant such a writ is made at judicial discretion.

The term comes from a Latin word which means “to be ascertained” or “to make certain.” A writ of certiorari is one of the ways in which a high court can review a case. When a petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari, the request must include an explanation of why the petitioner is resorting to a writ. The request must also indicate what in the case is under dispute, so that justices are aware of what they are being asked to review.

When a request for a writ of certiorari is submitted to a high court, clerks review it before passing it on to the justices. The justices vote on which cases shall be granted writs. In the United States, less than 5% of the requests for a writ of certiorari are granted, due to the high volume of requests and the busy court schedule. In Supreme Court shorthand, this is a “Cert. Denied.” When a writ is denied, it does necessarily mean that the higher court approves of the actions of the lower court, and the denial cannot be viewed as the court's final statement on the issue.

Since most high courts are responsible for interpreting and defending national constitutions and the law, justices tend to grant writs for controversial cases, or cases which may set a precedent. Once a lower court has been served with a writ of certiorari, it must turn the requested material over to the higher court. After review, the justices offer a decision on the material, either affirming the decision of the lower court, or rejecting it. In most cases, and majority and minority both submit a written opinion of the case.

Petitioners should consider a writ of certiorari a technique of last resort. Since the writ must include a reason why the petitioner has no other avenue of redress, it is important to explore all of the ways in which a legal problem can be addressed before submitting it to the highest court. In most nations, the judicial system has a tiered appeals process which should be followed first, in addition to other legal means which a lawyer may suggest.

Written by S.E. Smith

(bold mine)

This explanation - that a "Writ of Certiorari" supports what Sean Osborne of the North East Intelligence Network wrote:

"VERY, VERY FEW writs of this type are ever granted by SCOTUS.

This writ was granted due to some very compelling reasons - the number one reason hinges on whether Obama is Constitutionally elibible to hold the office of POTUS."


(see original blogpost).

Sosthenes said...

If the election was legally overturned, we will have more than a Constitutional Crisis because some feel that we will unfortunately have a race war and I'm not too uncerain that it is not possible.

Christinewjc said...

Philip Berg tried to avoid all of this through presenting lawsuits prior to the election for proof of Obama's natural born citizen status.

Being a lawyer himself, Obama was able to dodge having to present such proof.

If this election is overturned, there is no one more to blame than Obama himself. The DNC would also be complicite in this Constitutional crisis for not vetting him properly (they probably know the truth, but hoped it would never be found out) and/or participating in the conspiracy (willfully) because all the lawyers at Obama's side would block every effort to get to the truth.

Christinewjc said...

Updates on front page:

[Update: Update 10 November 2008: Three items of direct relevance to this subject were just brought to my attention. First item is the draft of a WeThePeople Foundation full-page ad to be published inUSA TODAY the week of November 17, 2008. The second item is a petition to the Federal Election Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States which citizen patriots can sign (anonymously if desired) and submit to become personally engaged in this issue.]

[Note: Update at 6:27 p.m. PT:

What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Judge Surrick, who presides over the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, must respond to the Writ of Certiorari (sur-shee-uh-rare-eye) by providing to SCOTUS Justice Souter all documents and court proceedings in the case of Berg v. Obama. The crux of the matter here is that Obama (et al.) filed only a motion to dismiss on the grounds on Phil Berg's "lack of standing" to file the lawsuit. No information countering Berg's allegations or challenges to Obama's status as a natural born citizen were addressed. Judge Surrick agreed with the Obama motion and dismissed the case due to Berg's "lack of standing." Justice Souter will most certainly see the specific challenge to Obama's eligibilty pursuant to the Constitutional requirement for president and subsequently may then issue an order for Obama (et al.) to submit docmentation proving his natural born citizenship status to Judge Surrick, or to provide them directly to the SCOTUS.]

spud tooley said...

if usa today prints that ad, you can pretty well give up EVER claiming media bias again...

the problem with those kind of ad-buying whackos is they can't just put their main point out there and say 'let's discuss this calmly and rationally.' they have to fly off the handle and go on and on and on like ... like ... like ...

... this blog. :)

(sorry.)

those reynolds wrap hats don't really help the cause, either.

anyway, we'll sit tight and see what happens.

spud tooley said...

sosthenes -

your comment about a race war - i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't fully think through that comment before posting it.

you need to pause and think for a minute - the black person in america came out of slavery - SLAVERY - one hundred and fifty years ago. they were looked at as less than human. they endured prejudice and segregation after that for another hundred - HUNDRED - years. even today, there exists prejudice and bigotry in our country that i personally will never understand nor be able to fully see through a black person's eyes.

and now the country, after two long years of campaigning, has risen up and put a black man in the white house. can you even stop to imagine for a minute what that could mean to them? granted, a lot of blacks alive today did not face the alabama or the mississippi or the georgia of forty or fifty years ago.

but there are probably millions still alive who did.

now, imagine for a minute what would go through your head - down to your very soul - if what looks like a bunch of white people in power try to hide behind their 'protection of the constitution' and invalidate the strong vote of the american people - which reached across all colors and all ages - by saying, well, we don't believe his birth certificate is accurate.

can you even pause for a minute and think what that would feel like?

this is not about the dnc not vetting their candidate. this is not about 'protecting the constitution.' this is ALL about not letting that man become president. i will give everyone here the benefit of the doubt that it has nothing to do with race. i would hope that we - CHRISTIANS - have come far, far beyond those kinds of divisions.

but the american people have spoken. and spoken quite resoundingly. and the country is, if you haven't noticed, teetering on the brink of some things we really don't even want to imagine.

don't pretend you're doing this in 'america's best interest.' if you're pushing for this, you are revealing that america means absolutely nothing to you.

and shut up, gary - you're on ignore. forever.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Gary Baker said...

"this is ALL about not letting that man become president."

Interesting choice of words. It seems to imply that the man has a right to become president. No one does. And if a person doesn't meet the qualifications required for the process, they don't even have the right to try. (Kind of like marriage in that regard.)

As a former service member, America means a great deal to me. It certainly means freedom and hopes and dreams. But none of these things means anything, neither can they be preserved, without respecting the rule of law, the same rule that so many seem willing to cast aside to achieve their short sighted desires. As it was in Germany in the 20's and 30's, the nazi types want us to "shut up" because we will not surrender our principles for and embrace the future they imagine for us, as though we were incapable of planning a future for ourselves. Some of these nazis claim to be Christians, or spiritual, or true Americans, when in fact their only goal is to fulfill their own selfish desires. This is certainly a time when true patriots will stand in support of the law, in support of their principles, and in support of their faith.

The night before the election, my daughters and I sang a song from one of the Veggie Tales clips. It was titled "My God's Bigger Than the Boogie Man." The day of the election, I woke and told my wife "Come, let us see what the Lord will do for us today." I am very curious about what lies ahead for the nation. I am not worried.

Christinewjc said...

Gary -

You have been doing an excellent job (as usual!) of countering Mike. You certainly don't need any input from me!

We are already seeing some early, negative results of a clueless part of the nation's liberals and uninformed voters electing the wrong person to be president.

Here's just one of many:

BUSH BETRAYED - Obama Leaks Info From Private Talk

spud tooley said...

Gary -

You have been doing an excellent job (as usual!) of countering Mike.


ha! now THAT was funny...

-mr

mattmc3 said...

"this is ALL about not letting that man become president"

No!!! This is about making sure the person sworn to uphold the constitution hasn't perpetrated against a clear and nonpartisan article in it. If he's a liar or misrepresented himself, then lets see justice served swiftly and harshly.

If, however, it is as I suspect and this is entirely a make-believe issue (Berg's not a very credible guy, let me tell you), then lets resolve it quickly so that we can move off of these distractions and onto the very pressing and real issues of the day.

Sosthenes said...

Mike,

I work with Willie on some days. He is a black man and he is older than I am. He believes that everyone is racist and his reasoning is that everyone sees color. You see color and I see color. Those people who say that they try not to let color affect their decisions are people that Willie will give the benefit of the doubt of not being racist.

I'm trying to do my best to put forth Willie's side and I don't do it justice and I can't use words that are profane but Willie feels that he has gotten a raw deal so if he is going to get another raw deal then he wants it to come from another black man and I think that black people are looking for dignity which is why they voted for Obama because for once they want someone who can understand them and the plight that they have been in.

According to blackamericastudy.com, "82% said they believe it is 'important for parents to prepare their children for prejudice'. If that is true, how can anyone here think that they would vote for Hillary or Bill to represent them instead of a black person?

"More (48%) think that things got better since the Civil Rights struggles of the 60s-than the 1/3 say who say things aren't better."

"African-Americans are more than twice as likely to really trust Black media (30%) as they are to trust mainstream media (13%)."

http://www.blackamericastudy.com/fact-sheets/Religion_and_Social_Views_Final2.pdf

As far as the court challenge is concerned, Mike, I have very little to do with it. You and I can't stop court proceedings and I didn't donate any money to the cause. Is there any harm at discovery? And do you think the average voter really has a say when it is the electorial college that chooses?

This country is bigger than you and I, Mike. I play a very insignificant part which is something less than one out of three hundred million.

Sosthenes

Christinewjc said...

Obama supporters would ignore the rule of law so that their choice for president could be sworn in - even if it is found out that he is not a natural born citizen.

Similarly, the ACLU and gay rights groups are trying to sue in order to overturn (again!) the desire of the 53% of voters who want the definition and recognition of the union of one man and one woman to be restored in California. They want the decision overturned because they didn't get their way. The heck with the law - just usurp it because they don't like the outcome!

What has happened to our nation? The Constitution and the laws and safeguards do not mean anything anymore to these people! It's sad...truly sad.

jeleasure said...

In all of this discussion concerning Obama's allegiance, or citizenship by denouncing his allegience to Indonesia, I see why Obama does not place his hand on his heart (formality) and recite the pledge to the flag.
More than likely, he has not taken the oath of allegianc to The United States of America.
When it became an issue, I believe Obama did allow himself to be caught on film pledging allegiance. (It seems to me I remember seeing this image) However, his routine habit is to not pledge allegiance. The next time he will be faced with stating allegience to the United States will be during the swearing in. I don't think he will be thinking of his 'allegiance' to this country, though.

Christinewjc said...

Very good observation, Jim!

As we get more and more information about what an Obama Administration would do (like repealing something like 500? Bush executive orders), the chilling reality of all my warnings written in dozens of blog posts about Obama are coming back to mind.

Our Founding Fathers were geniuses. They were also God loving, God honoring, and God fearing men. We know what kind of heretical, America-hating "preacher" Obama studied under. There is no way he could sit in the pews of that church and not have heard (or not have agreed with) Rev. Wrong's rantings. But I'm veering off topic.

The reason why our Constitution unequivocably states that anyone seeking the office of the presidency must be a natural born citizen is precisely for the reasons you had stated. There was a fear of disloyalty to our nation, and/or divided loyalty with other nations - many of which now hate us and would do anything to destroy us.

In Dr. Jeremiah's book, "What in the World is Going On?" he states six reasons why there is such a silence of the Bible on the future of America. I plan to do a post about this soon. For now, here's the list:

1. America will be incorporated into the European coalition.
2. America will be invaded by outside forces.
3. America will be infected with moral decay.
4. America will be impotent because of the Rapture.

As a nation in decline, we have already experienced #'s 2 and 3. Obama would likely push us towards incorporation with the European coalition.

Dr. Jeremiah thinks that the Rapture will be the main reason why America will be impotent - because of the chaos that would ensue.

Many prophecy experts state that America is mentioned as one of the "young lions" in Scripture. Since our nation was born via separation from England (mentioned as a "lion" in Scripture)it can be surmised that the "young" lions (because compared to Europe, we are a young nation) include the U.S.A. . (see Ezekiel 38 prophecy, especially verse 38:13 -

Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil? (bold mine)

Back to Obama. Many people who voted for Obama and have been interviewed since the election have not been able to come up with reasons why they voted for him other than because "he is black" and, for those who are black - "he is one of us." With 95% of black Americans voting for him, there are bound to be many Christians who simply ignored his radical associations and views on social issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc.). However, hearing that Obama wants to pass the ENDA legislation and overturn Bush's ban on funding abortions overseas is certainly a bad sign for pro-life advocates. Out of 95% of blacks, I wonder how many are pro-life believers? How many will mourn their decision to vote for Obama when they see the additional carnage of murdered babies in the womb that will come to fruition through Obama's repeal of all laws concerning minimizing abortions in America?

Chilling....

spud tooley said...

i don't even know how to even begin to respond to the silliness in that last comment, christine. i think you might have actually outdone yourself this time.

as to the rapture, imagine floating up towards heaven and seeing that beautiful daughter of yours in the blogger picture you have remaining on the ground. if your heart as a mother - much less a christian, where 'greater love hath no man than this to lay down his life for his friends' - wouldn't scream bloody murder to let you take her place, then i wonder about your heart.

-mr

Christinewjc said...

Mike -

So...it is silly to report that Obama will do everything in his power to lead our nation (and the world) towards absolute, unfettered abortion?

As far as the Rapture is concerned, my daughter, and son, and husband, as well as many of our relatives and friends - are all born-again, saved Christians.

Therefore, my daughter (and others mentioned above) will be with me if that event occurs in my lifetime.

It is true that we can't be certain about others. It is a relationship between God and them. However, Jesus did tell us, "by their fruits ye shall know them." I have heard and witnessed the conversion of my loved ones. Therefore, I have confidence that they are, and forever will be, safe in Jesus' hands - no matter what happens.

Jhn 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:


Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.


Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.


Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

spud tooley said...

perhaps. but i think you guys have quoted matthew 7:21ff to me a time or two...

in fact, i think i remember seeing your daughter at an 'obama for president' rally - she was selling t-shirts that said, 'TELL MY MOMMA - "STOP HATING OBAMA"', and then it listed talk wisdom's url...

-mr

Christinewjc said...

Aren't you the comedian this morning.../sarc off

jeleasure said...

Hi Christine,
According to this blogger, at This Link, the ruling was pulled I don't know what to believe, now because much of the information is not dated. The only sources of information I am finding is from bloggers, grant I have not searched very hard, busy. What do you make of this blogger's information. I asked Sean, but, he seems non responsive. I think he just wants me to post a comment on his blog. So, I will.

Christinewjc said...

I read several of the links from the original link you provided. The Devvy Kid link had loads of information! In fact, it corroborates what was suspected in James 4 America's blog!

I am PRAYING that Judge Souter requires PROOF of Obama's natural born citizen status and decides that it's time for him to show him (and all Americans) his vault length COLB.

This is not a game - IT'S INTENSELY SERIOUS!!

Sosthenes said...

"perhaps. but i think you guys have quoted matthew 7:21ff to me a time or two..."

Since I found a copy of "Q", I'll answer your statement (Grin).

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The work includes belief and repentance, Mike. It includes being a moral influence:

John 3:16 For God so loved ( agapaō) the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I heard a pastor on the radio this morning give the definition of agapaō and it is moral consideration.

If you lose your moral influence and consideration, your salt can't preserve things which are rotting down here.

Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

God stopped what He was doing and humbled Himself and came down here in moral consideration of what you were doing to save you.

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Yes, work includes loving people but loving people ceases to be love when you don't honor what is best and what is right for them and allowing them not to repent is to allow them to go to hell. Allowing them to be harmed in hell is not love, Mike. It is necessary so that other people won't follow them because we love the people who will listen but sin is something toxic to God because He is Holy and it isn't just about being polite. It is about why He came.

Tts 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

What part do you play in redeeming us from all iniquity or are you too busy loving that you lost your salt? Did you ever put salt in a cut? It burns but if you were stranded somewhere it might be all you have to fight infection.