Lawsuit Filed Against Obama:Citizenship Ineligibility

[Pitbull]

have you read the suit? it's ridiculous. He (Berg) even saw the certificate from factcheck or wherever and argued that it's fake because his father's nationality is listed as 'African' and not 'negro'. So quit your shit about 'producing a valid certificate'. It would be like trying to take NASA to court for faking the moon landing, and then you coming out and say 'oh well if NASA isn't fully and utterly complicit in providing all potential proof then i'm starting to doubt it'. Please. You aren't starting to doubt anything, you're just trying to raise doubts in others to satisfy your need to act against whatever ingrained ideological problems you have with Obama's politics or whatever else.

Yes I have read the suit.
Did you read my question?

... Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931
We have not heard the last of this.

This is the essence of my question.
Why does Obama invite legal challenges?

Democratic apologists you may continue to avoid answering.
Reason - you don't have an answer.
As I pointed out the most expedient route would have been to produce a birth certificate for the court and for all to see.

A picture from factcheck.org may satisfy you but it is not admissable in court. And it does nothing to satisfy skeptics like myself.
When something does not make sense that bothers me.

And if no one saw any rocket launch into space and the only evidence of reaching the moon was that NASA posted a picture of a rock on its website as proof and never produced the rock...

And I do happen to believe that all candidates for all public offices and most definitely for President of the United States provide proof that they meet the minimum requirements to hold that office - whatever thay may be - before their name can be put on a ballot.

 

[1BiGG1]

When you find a real news source for this smear, let us know.

You do know there are legitimate news sources outside of the leftwing-spin-machine that panders to the ObamaBot’s with nothing but little sound-bite fuzzes don’t you?

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

The republican party is grasping at anything at this point.

 

[1BiGG1]

The republican party is grasping at anything at this point.

I think you missed the part saying it’s a democrat behind the lawsuit.

 

[mindseye]

You do know there are legitimate news sources outside of the leftwing-spin-machine that panders to the ObamaBot’s with nothing but little sound-bite fuzzes don’t you?

Yes, I do. And if you find one that sources your outlandish story, share it with us.

 

[Pitbull]

Yes, I do. And if you find one that sources your outlandish story, share it with us.

Just google "Obama Citizenship Lawsuit" and get 336,000 hits.
Go through all of them and see if one is to your liking.

Here are the facts that they all seem to agree on.

Philip Berg, a democrat filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama and the DNC questioning whether or not Mr. Obama was constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

The lawsuit was considered and the judge hearing the case dismissed the suit.

The judge did not rule as to whether or not Mr. Obama was eligible.

Mr. Berg has said he will appeal.

 

[1BiGG1]

Yes, I do. And if you find one that sources your outlandish story, share it with us.

Now mind you, I’m not religious and spend a considerable amount of time deprogramming those that are but I will be the first to admit WND comes up with much spot-on news.

Read this BREAKING NEWS ….

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor

… I would think even a liberal-apologist might find this interesting.

 

[mindseye]

Just google "Obama Citizenship Lawsuit" and get 336,000 hits.
Go through all of them and see if one is to your liking.

Here are the facts that they all seem to agree on.

*sigh* The outlandish claim is not that some nutjob filed a lawsuit. It's the claim by that nutjob that based on some phone call he can prove that Obama was born in Kenya that forms the basis for that lawsuit.

 

[dreamer20]

The republican party is grasping at anything at this point.

That is correct Jason. Other than Trinity, I know of one who posted Berg's fictitious tales, claimed the information was true and that Berg won his case on Oct.24,08. He didn't believe that the case was still pending that particular day, and was embarrassed to learn the truth of the case being tossed out the next day.:smile:

 

[Notaguru2]

The lawsuit was considered and the judge hearing the case dismissed the suit.

The judge did not rule as to whether or not Mr. Obama was eligible.

Hey dipshit... the Judge did not rule because he wrote an opinion that the suit itself had no fucking standing. (in legal terms for your dumbass, that means his claim was unfounded - he didn't provide reasonable evidence of what he alleged)

The judge granted Obama's move to dismiss. You don't rule on anything that isn't TRIED. Damn, are you really this fucking stupid?

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/loc..._s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html

The judge DID rule on Berg's suit though, "Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

 

[Pitbull]

Now mind you, I’m not religious and spend a considerable amount of time deprogramming those that are but I will be the first to admit WND comes up with much spot-on news.

Read this BREAKING NEWS ….

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor

… I would think even a liberal-apologist might find this interesting.

I find it interesting.

However, reading through the lines -

There is not any official statement from the govenor of Hawaii or her office specifically sealing the birth certificate of Mr. Obama.
By law all birth certificates are "sealed" for a period of years and can only be accessed by a short list of legally entitled people.
If she was just reminding the office in charge of the law and their duty there doesn't seem to be anything sinister in that.

Ms. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, is a Republican.

There is speculation in the article.
A source that refuses to answer their questions is framed as hiding something. Although I would speculate that since the source was familiar with the document in question he or she may be an employee of the State of Hawaii and not allowed to release such information.

I did find this interesting -
"In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4."
What documents would Kenya have that would need to be sealed?

Not being an expert on U.S. immigration law, I'm not sure if this is true or not but supposedly "natural born citizenship status IS RELINQUISHED if a child under the age of 18 is adopted by a citizen of another country".

Was Obama adopted by his Indonesian step father?

The last paragraph of the article cited states:
"Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess."

LPSG website politics forum has offered no explanation either, but we weren't cited in the article.

 

[Pitbull]

Hey dipshit... the Judge did not rule because he wrote an opinion that the suit itself had no fucking standing. (in legal terms for your dumbass, that means his claim was unfounded - he didn't provide reasonable evidence of what he alleged)

The judge granted Obama's move to dismiss. You don't rule on anything that isn't TRIED. Damn, are you really this fucking stupid?

Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot | Philadelphia Daily News | 10/25/2008

Such language.
Guess you think if you call someone stupid that it automatically makes you right.

"in legal terms for your dumbass, that means his claim was unfounded - he didn't provide reasonable evidence of what he alleged"

WRONG!
In legal terms it means he ruled that Mr. Berg could not bring a suit

Since you are so smart, please tell me why Mr. Obama won't show his birth certificate?
If you can give me a good reason, I will actually agree with you.

 

[Notaguru2]

I find it interesting.

However, reading through the lines -

There is not any official statement from the govenor of Hawaii or her office specifically sealing the birth certificate of Mr. Obama.
By law all birth certificates are "sealed" for a period of years and can only be accessed by a short list of legally entitled people.
If she was just reminding the office in charge of the law and their duty there doesn't seem to be anything sinister in that.

Ms. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, is a Republican.

There is speculation in the article.
A source that refuses to answer their questions is framed as hiding something. Although I would speculate that since the source was familiar with the document in question he or she may be an employee of the State of Hawaii and not allowed to release such information.

I did find this interesting -
"In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4."
What documents would Kenya have that would need to be sealed?

Not being an expert on U.S. immigration law, I'm not sure if this is true or not but supposedly "natural born citizenship status IS RELINQUISHED if a child under the age of 18 is adopted by a citizen of another country".

Was Obama adopted by his Indonesian step father?

The last paragraph of the article cited states:
"Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess."

LPSG website politics forum has offered no explanation either, but we weren't cited in the article.

You have to remember how the legal system works in the US. It is not the requirement of the accused to clear their name, but rather it is incumbent on the accuser to provide their evidence.

Just because you don't like the certificate you've been given doesn't mean a different one has to be produced. I've said it before; I'm sure the CIA and FBI vetted this out long ago. Its just time to realize you've lost the election... deal with it.

 

[Notaguru2]

Since you are so smart, please tell me why Mr. Obama won't show his birth certificate?
If you can give me a good reason, I will actually agree with you.

He has. Just because you don't like the one that has been distributed doesn't mean he has to provide a different one. Hell, that would look worse wouldn't it? (Provide another document other than what has been provided already?)

He's an American and a true story of what what you can make of yourself in this country if you try. Why is that so hard to digest?

Heck, McCain was born in friggin' Panama. If it wasn't for the law that was passed the year AFTER he was born making births born abroad natural born citizens, then he wouldn't even be running right now. That law by the way, was retroactive to births prior to that year. So yes, McCain is a NBC by virtue of technicality.

 

[mindseye]

Since you are so smart, please tell me why Mr. Obama won't show his birth certificate?

Since you're so smart, you know that he has shown his birth certificate.

In June 2008, the Obama campaign released scans of the birth certificate to numerous agencies. Jerome Corsi, among others, continued to insist that the birth certificate was fake. In an interview on (where else) FOX 'News' he says:

Jerome Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

Steve Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

Jerome Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.

In August, representatives of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania were invited to see, feel, touch, and photograph the real original document.

Their testimony is here. Complete with pictures of the allegedly non-existent raised seal. Also complete with a picture of the birth announcement in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser. So, if Obama were faking the details his birth, he'd have had to start doing so at the age of eleven days.

I hope you'll apologize to Notaguru2.

 

[davec94]

Yes I have read the suit.
Did you read my question?

Yeah and i answered it, hell other people have already answered it too. You have no interest in finding out about the birth certficate. Your only goal here is to perhaps convince someone else that they should worry. Pretending to 'wonder out loud' about this is such a weak trick and you are not intelligent enough to pull it off, so just go back to door to door canvassing or go to the next site on the list the campaign is having you spit this shit out on.

 

[Pitbull]

No apologies.

I know to fit into the mold of someone who actually would dare to question Barack Obama then I must be a republican operative.

Well I am not.

I am not impressed by Barack Obama as a presidential choice.
I am not impressed by John McCain as a presidential choice.
I was not impressed by Al Gore, John Kerry as candidates.
I was not impressed by George Bush or Bill Clinton as candidates and I was disappointed by both of them as president.
I will, unlike typical partisans, grant that each of them has gotten it right a few times along with getting it wrong on many occasions.

I do not consider my question answered by any of the posts in this thread.
A scan of a document on my computer screen would not be admissible in court.

Why can he provide it to sources in the media that authenticate it while they fawn all over him and not to other media representatives?
I have not even seen anything that would even indicate that the NY Times or Washington Post got to examine it.

Barack Obama did not even provide that document to the court. (The one that appears on the website)

WHY??

I don't know why - and neither do you.

But he should have!
If I were sued in court and had a document that could have the case dismissed immediately or I could file motions asking for dismissal alleging the person filing the suit was not legally able to bring suit I would present the document.
I would have done it in August when the suit was filed.
It would have been done with.
It would either not have been appealed or any appeal would have been very weak.

So he did not and I say why?
I guess he has a reason.
Possibly something unrelated to citizenship.
I don't know.
But as Americans we have a right to question or leaders and those who want to be our leaders.

Unfortunately, there are too many among them that are willing to accept any answer given.
That is not the category I fall into.

 

[1BiGG1]

No apologies.

I know to fit into the mold of someone who actually would dare to question Barack Obama then I must be a republican operative.

Well I am not.

I am not impressed by Barack Obama as a presidential choice.
I am not impressed by John McCain as a presidential choice.
I was not impressed by Al Gore, John Kerry as candidates.
I was not impressed by George Bush or Bill Clinton as candidates and I was disappointed by both of them as president.
I will, unlike typical partisans, grant that each of them has gotten it right a few times along with getting it wrong on many occasions.

I do not consider my question answered by any of the posts in this thread.
A scan of a document on my computer screen would not be admissible in court.

Why can he provide it to sources in the media that authenticate it while they fawn all over him and not to other media representatives?
I have not even seen anything that would even indicate that the NY Times or Washington Post got to examine it.

Barack Obama did not even provide that document to the court. (The one that appears on the website)

WHY??

I don't know why - and neither do you.

But he should have!
If I were sued in court and had a document that could have the case dismissed immediately or I could file motions asking for dismissal alleging the person filing the suit was not legally able to bring suit I would present the document.
I would have done it in August when the suit was filed.
It would have been done with.
It would either not have been appealed or any appeal would have been very weak.

So he did not and I say why?
I guess he has a reason.
Possibly something unrelated to citizenship.
I don't know.
But as Americans we have a right to question or leaders and those who want to be our leaders.

Unfortunately, there are too many among them that are willing to accept any answer given.
That is not the category I fall into.

Nice response. One would think Obama would readily provide this just for the questions in undecided voters minds …. I have a feeling there is a reason he has not.

 

[tripod]

Go ahead and beat this dead horse all you want. It's total bullshit and you are clinging to an inconsequential formality that has no bearing on anything. Corsi and Berg are idiots and I don't for the life of me know why you would want to subscribe to their delusional lunacies.

I showed you the fucking birth certificate... and you probably didn't even look at it!!! Are you fucking dense or just completely ignorant?

 

[mindseye]

No apologies.

Your incivility is noted.

Why can he provide it to sources in the media that authenticate it while they fawn all over him and not to other media representatives?
I have not even seen anything that would even indicate that the NY Times or Washington Post got to examine it.

Perhaps because this flap isn't particularly newsworthy. Annenberg has a mandate to investigate these kinds of petty smears; the Times and the Post are newspapers.

If I were sued in court and had a document that could have the case dismissed immediately or I could file motions asking for dismissal alleging the person filing the suit was not legally able to bring suit I would present the document.
I would have done it in August when the suit was filed.

In my country, the plaintiff in a suit, not the defendant, has the burden of proof. Suggesting that Obama had a responsibility to provide defense against a baseless claim is unfair, and anti-American.