Monday, January 12, 2009

SCOTUS - Not About Honor or Duty Anymore

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Primary Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Constitutional Eligibility to Serve as President

By Jeff Schreiber, America's Right


Nearly a week before his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama likely has one less burden on his shoulders, as the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari today in the first lawsuit which called into question his constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States.

A motion filed by a third party seeking permission to file a amicus curiae--"friend of the court"--brief was granted, but with certiorari denied in Berg's case, it is unclear whether granting the amicus curiae motion is anything more than a formality, and whether the conference scheduled for Friday, January 16 in order to weigh an underlying injunction filed by Berg is necessary at this point. That the denial of certiorari was made "before judgment" is merely an acknowledgment that Berg's case is technically still active at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but changes nothing.

Philip Berg's lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee, filed on August 21, 2008 and first reported here at America's Right, questioned Obama's eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution--which requires in part that the president be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States--and was previously dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from District Court in Philadelphia. While the Supreme Court's denial of Berg's petition for certiorari today was not accompanied by explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least six Justices agreed with Surrick's determination that Berg lacked standing to sue.

"Of course, I cannot help but be disappointed because the Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate protectors of our Constitution, and in this case they really let us down," Berg said. "They let America down. They let all of us down. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against this country. Forget politics for a minute and just think of the Constitution -- next week, we'll be swearing in a president without even knowing for sure whether or not he's qualified constitutionally to serve in that office. There are so many unanswered questions about Barack Obama and, today, the Court just told us that we're not even permitted to ask."

Berg, a former Pennsylvania gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, asserted in his suit that Obama was indeed born in Kenya and not Hawaii as the president-elect maintains, and that if he did have U.S. citizenship, he relinquished it during childhood when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and was adopted by Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro, never reinstating that citizenship upon his return.

From the beginning, Berg sought access to documentation offering proof of Obama's citizenship and past, including but not limited to the long-form, "vault" copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate, and considered the president-elect's failure to produce such documents as a sign that Obama had something to hide. He cited everything from mere Internet rumors to actual Associated Press-confirmed registration forms from Obama's childhood school in Indonesia showing that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro," that his religion was listed as "Islam," and that his citizenship was listed as "Indonesia." For Berg, though, it came down to the documentation he didn't have.

"At this point in time, Obama owes it to people to produce the documents," Berg told America's Right just two days after filing suit. "If I’m wrong, even if he doesn’t want to handle it himself and has the person in charge of his campaign communications come out and say, 'here is the vault copy of the birth certificate, here is the certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance from when he came back from Indonesia, this issue should be put to bed and Mr. Berg should withdraw his suit immediately or we’ll sue him to high heaven,' then I’m wrong. If they do not do that within the next day or so, then I know we’re right. If they let the case linger, then I believe we’re right. The challenge I’ve made to them is that, if they don’t produce these documents, then we know they’re wrong."

Berg's case was dismissed at the district court level by Judge Surrick primarily for lack of standing, a procedural check required by the Case or Controversy Clause in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution as an effort to foster judicial efficacy and limit access to a court of law to those plaintiffs who can show a sufficient "stake" in a particular controversy. To prove standing and thus be eligible to bring suit, a plaintiff must show (1) a particularized--rather than generalized--injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that "regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters."

Following the October 24, 2008 dismissal, Berg filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that while there is indeed the aforementioned three-prong test for standing, there is no such definitive test for establishing what exactly constitutes an injury-in-fact. Instead, Berg argued in his petition, whether or not a plaintiff has sustained an injury-in-fact depends upon how that plaintiff's factual claims are perceived by the judge on what has been described as a "sliding scale" of speculation, creativity and remoteness. In other words, if the factual support of a plaintiff's allegations is deemed too speculative, too remote, or too creative, then the judge may not find injury, and visa versa.

Though the order list released by the Supreme Court today provides no reason for its denial of certiorari, such a denial inevitably is an affirmation of the district court judge's assertion that Berg's claim, as a mere voter, was far too generalized to satisfy the Case and Controversy Clause of the same Constitution he was attempting to uphold. Whether or not the Justices considered the factual elements of Berg's allegations, without insight gleaned from a rare dissent to a denial of certiorari, is indeed another question left unanswered.

"The biggest question here is if I don't have standing, who does?" Berg asked. "I'm an American citizen, a voting American citizen, asking the Court to uphold our Constitution. If I'm not allowed to ask that, who is?"


Read the rest here.

I must admit. The fact that Mr. Philip J. Berg, an American citizen, a voting American citizen, who is asking the Court to uphold our Constitution does not have "standing" has me highly concerned. If this man is not allowed to ask these things, then who does have the right to ask them?

I thought that after the electoral college votes were in, that Mr. Berg would then have standing on this issue. When that didn't happen, I thought that perhaps after Congress certified the electoral college votes, then Mr. Berg would have standing. Now that his writ of certiorari has once again been denied, I must ask when would the man be deemed to have standing? Is it only after the inauguration of a usurper for POTUS has been done?

I'm not a lawyer and do not always understand the procedures that are transpiring around these lawsuits. However, I am very grieved that Mr. Berg has not been found to have standing to ask these questions and get them resolved through a full hearing of his lawsuit at SCOTUS. Maybe someone can come along and enlighten me.

At Jeff Schreiber's "America's Right" website (link above), one commenter wrote:


Anonymous said...
Jeff,
As someone pointed out above, what does "before judgement" mean?? When I read this on the orders list it seemed to me that there is still an opening here for SCOTUS to hear the case. It does not seem as definitive as "certoria denied".
Also, I am wondering if the Lightfoot case is a better case to go before SCOTUS anyway. Lightfoot covers all the issues - the birth certificate, the Indonesian citizenship and the dual citizenship at birth. What are your thoughts?
I am just having a hard time wrapping my mind around the possibility that SCOTUS is willing to overlook the constitution on something as important as this. I guess I need to become less idealistic and realize that our leaders do not care about honor or duty anymore. It is all above saving themselves politically.

January 12, 2009 11:03 AM


I agree with Anonymous. I am also having a hard time "wrapping my mind around the possibility that SCOTUS is willing to overlook the Constitution on something as important as this."

I also think that he/she answered his/her own concerns:


"I guess I need to become less idealistic and realize that our leaders do not care about honor or duty anymore. It is all above [perhaps meant "about"] saving themselves politically."


Yep...

Copied links to these articles over at Investigating Obama:

Further Obama Appraisals - some caught on quickly, others are discovering

"The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth" Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail

"What We Know About Obama" Stanley Kurtz, NRO

"Socialism in Disguise" Ian de Silva, Washington Times

"Obama's Socialist Background" Is2C, FreeRepublic.com

"Obama's Radicalism: Destroying the Constitution" Manchester Union Leader

"Barack Obama's Radical Positions on Abortion" Jill Stanek

"Pinch Yourself" (Marxist on the verge of U.S. Presidency) - Spectator

"The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama" Morrisey, Benson, Ham

*******
Hat Tips:

America's Right

Investigating Obama

*******
Update:

Maybe there is still hope!

From a commenter at Obamacrimes.com -

Bill Anderson's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief
written by Ned, January 12, 2009

In today's SCOTUS order list, at the following site, I see that Bill Anderson's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, on behalf of Phil's case was granted, even though the Writ of Certiorari was denied:

http://www.supremecourtus.
gov/...209zor.pdf

How does this affect the case? Can some useful information be submitted through Bill Anderson's brief of amicus curiae that will be helpful for the pending lawsuits like Lightfoot v Bowen and Phil's other lawsuits that are pending in the lower courts?
URGENT From Lisa regarding Today's SCOTUS ruling
written by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009

Here is a very brief explanation of what today's ruling means to us...

What today's ruling means is that WE'RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama - in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn't resolved.
If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won't be sworn in. We jsut don't know what might happen next.

In the meantime, Bill Anderson's motion for "permission" to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.

WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!

Phil is putting together a press release to be posted today on obamacrimes.com.

6 comments:

Christinewjc said...

Update from a commenter at Obamacrimes.com:

Bill Anderson's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief
written by Ned, January 12, 2009

In today's SCOTUS order list, at the following site, I see that Bill Anderson's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, on behalf of Phil's case was granted, even though the Writ of Certiorari was denied:

http://www.supremecourtus.
gov/...209zor.pdf

How does this affect the case? Can some useful information be submitted through Bill Anderson's brief of amicus curiae that will be helpful for the pending lawsuits like Lightfoot v Bowen and Phil's other lawsuits that are pending in the lower courts?
URGENT From Lisa regarding Today's SCOTUS ruling
written by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009

Here is a very brief explanation of what today's ruling means to us...

What today's ruling means is that WE'RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama - in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn't resolved.
If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won't be sworn in. We jsut don't know what might happen next.

In the meantime, Bill Anderson's motion for "permission" to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.

WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!

Phil is putting together a press release to be posted today on obamacrimes.com.

Anonymous said...

Here's what's happening:

1. Berg's case is going down to the Court of Appeals.

2. Supreme Court has nevertheless accepted the amicus brief that, regardless of Berg, Supreme Court MUST issue a stay until the matter is resolved (either at the Court of Appeals or through one of the other actions now before the Supreme Court or Obama voluntarily withdraws for the peace of the country) because it would be catastrophic damage to USA if Obama were inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, because all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable).

3. Supreme Court currently has a Stay set for Conference on 1/16/09 and can Stay the 1/20/09 Inauguration of Obama to be replaced by the swearing in of Biden under the 20th Amendment (at least to serve as Acting President until the Obama constitutional elligibility is resolved).

4. Alternatively, the Supreme Court can retroactively Stay (after 1/20/09) -- say on 1/23/09 at its scheduled conference on the Lightfoot case -- the Obama Inauguration until the eligibility issue is resolved

rebecca said...

i am just beyond weeping and shame! eight days left people! what on earth can we do to save this country from the biggest liberal of all history?

it just makes me SICK to think that foreigner might POTUS.

And to ANONYMOUS: Biden is NOT the answer. If anything that guy is a BIGGER liberal than BHO... he certainly has a bigger MOUTH!!!

On JAN 20 John McCain becomes the true president... he won more votes than BHO, ignoring the fraudulent ballots of ACORN.

John said...

So SCOTUS denies a lawsuit from a well documented whack job and they are deemed by you and the other members of the tin foil hat brigade to be "not about honor and duty anymore"?

How did I know this would happen?? And don't you just hate those "activist judges"??

Keep it coming and please, don't any of you worry about your credibility!! LOL

Christinewjc said...

Anonymous -

Thank you for the additional information. I sincerely hope that you are correct about the SCOTUS needing to stay the inauguration until the constitutional eligibility issue surrounding Obama is resolved. Will this happen at the January 16th conference?

I have a few questions, though. What about the fact that Biden may have accepted the V.P. nomination under Obama, all the while KNOWING that Obama is not a natural born citizen? Would that make him an accomplice in this fraud? How then, could Chief Justice John Roberts swear Biden into the office of the president on the 20th - even if it would be temporarily?

And, if the inauguration happens, then Obama is found ineligible days, weeks or even months down the road, how is he removed from office? I have read that he cannot be impeached because he wasn't eligible in the first place. Therefore, he would need to be removed in some other way - police or military action?

Any additional information that you could provide here would be greatly appreciated.

Christinewjc said...

Rebecca -

I have been accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" and a "tin foil hat" blogger (notice "John's" comment here) over the course of this entire election cycle. When attempting to get at the ultimate truth, one needs to examine everything.

At one point, I had a sneaking suspicion that the Obama phenomenon was all just a show and that the Democrats in charge KNOW Obama isn't eligible. Recall how quickly Harry Reid changed his vote for Burris to get Obama's vacant senate seat after Mr. Burris said, in an interview, that he, himself, is a "natural born citizen." I think that the man used that as a weapon against the Senate and House Democratic leaders so that they would "change their minds" and give him the senate seat - despite the fact that that the Dems didn't want Blagojevich's choice to be seated. Of course, the Media of Mass Deception didn't make such a connection.

It is for those reasons, and many, many more, that I think this whole charade COULD BE an "end run" to get Biden into the presidency.

Back in August, before Biden was chosen, I had guessed correctly that Obama would pick him for V.P.

As Obama's ineligibility issue caught steam and the lawsuits started piling up, I wrote about the possibility that it was all a ruse to get Biden into office.

Everyone knows that Biden's lack of popularity and verbal gaffes (not to mention his ugly, ultra-liberal leftist policies...ugh!) would NEVER enable him to get into office without the Obamessiah's teleprompter rhetoric.

I was reading some comments at another blog and someone else mentioned similar suspicions about the Obama candidacy and Biden's presidential aspirations.

It was at
Citizen Wells blog.

Here is a copy:

In Palin We Trust // January 12, 2009 at 11:24 pm

I bet all this ineligibility is suddenly and CONVENIENTLY “discovered” once Obarfa is inagurated. See, then Biden (who has desperatly wanted to be President since like forever) has a serious chance at it if Obarfa is then found to be ineligible. Biden would NOT serve temporaily, HE WOULD BECOME POTUS. I bet Nancy Pegrossi will help him with the “discovery” to get the nod as his new V.P.! The second position she could claim as being the first woman to hold.

Really…has anyone really thought about the Biden angle? He really wanted to be President…or wants to be President.


Since yesterday when I first read it, other commenters have chimed in. Found this article posted over there quite interesting:

Jacqlyn Smith // January 13, 2009 at 2:25 am

Please read the article below. This sounds fishy to me!!! Do you suppose he was getting rid of incriminating evidence on Obama. Why can’t there be access to Obama’s passport if this guy got it illegally???

=================================

Ken Timmerman RSS ARCHIVE

Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

Obama’s Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:46 PM

Article Font Size

Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”

At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

“This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,” Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.

The passport files include “personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,” according to the inspector general report.

The files may contain additional information including “original copies of the associated documents,” the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

The Obama campaign acknowledged at its “Fight the Smears” Web site that Obama was a foreign national until the age of 18, by virtue of his father’s British then Kenyan citizenship.

“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982,” the Web site stated.

“Fight the Smears” attempted to debunk rumors that Obama was not a U.S. citizen by producing a 2007 computer-generated copy of his certification of live birth.

“The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America,” the Web site states.

However, “native citizen” is a colloquialism, not a legal term. It is not the same as “natural-born citizen,” the requirement to be president set out in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts has scheduled a Supreme Court conference on Jan. 23 on Lightfoot v. Bowen, one of several cases alleging that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen because of his birthright British citizenship.

The State Department chalked up the passport file snooping discovered in March 2008 to “imprudent curiosity” by contract employees hired to help process passport applications.

Asked by reporters during a campaign stop in Portland, Ore., to comment on the breach, Obama said that attempts to “tap into people’s personal records” were “a problem not just for me but for how our government functions.

“I expect a full and thorough investigation. It should be done in conjunction with those congressional committees that have oversight so it’s not simply an internal matter,” he added.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Obama and personally apologized for the breach. “I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” Rice told reporters. She phoned Clinton and McCain and offered similar apologies.

Following the breach, State Department managers met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, whose committee has oversight over the Foreign Service and the passport office. Biden will be sworn in as Obama’s vice president on Jan. 20.

The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped “Sensitive but Unclassified,” the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.

The problems posed by the breach were so serious that the inspector general recommended that the State Department conduct “vulnerability and risk assessments of all passport systems” to identify security weaknesses and suggest “a timetable for implementing corrective actions.”

Acting Assistant secretary for administration William H. Moser sent a six-page reply concurring with the recommendation, all but one paragraph of which was blacked out because of the sensitivity of the information it contained.

Had Brennan been appointed CIA director, as rumored in the Obama campaign shortly after the election, senators also would have questioned him about an article he wrote in an obscure foreign policy magazine over the summer.

The article, entitled “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” appeared in the July issue of “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.”

Among other recommendations, it argued that the next U.S. administration should grant political legitimacy to the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, and should exercise “strategic patience” with Iran rather than engaging in “bellicose” rhetoric and coercive diplomacy.


Then, another comment about Biden:

Ace // January 13, 2009 at 9:30 am

The amicus brief is from an Arizona elector. This Arizona elector (a McCain elector) achieved standing on January 8, 2009 when the congress certified the electoral vote. Arizona law states that an elector can compel the Attorney General to discover the eligibility of candidates. Berg is attempting to have Soetoro’s birth certificate subpoenaed through this elector who has standing. The Supreme Court just agreed and confirmed that this elector has standing. The republican of Hawaii sealed Soetoro’s BC months ago. If the circuit subpoenas the BC, Soetoro may be in serious legal and political trouble.


Note that last sentence: "Soetoro may be in serious legal and political trouble"

We can only hope he's caught in a big sting!! This wouldn't trump the "natural born citizen" issue, but it would be additional evidence as to why this fraud should NEVER set foot in the White House!