This Week in the Courts
Submitted by Phil on Sun, Jan 4, 200910 Comments
For the Barack Hussein Obama presidential eligibility saga, this week presents a number of important milestones for both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government as well as the great State of Washington:
- Thursday, January 8, 2009: Congress meets in joint session to count the Electoral College votes; from the National Archives: “Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.”
- Thursday, January 8, 2009: James Broe, Plaintiff pro se and one of 13 total Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed (attorney Stephen Pidgeon representing), is scheduled to have his case heard via oral argument at the Washington State Supreme Court.
- Friday, January 9, 2009: Philip J. Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, has his case going to Supreme Court Conference, where they will privately discuss whether or not to grant a writ of Certiorari (“Rule of Four“: 4 of 9 Justices required to grant). Remember the following concerning these writs, per Wikipedia: “the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial ‘imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.’ Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.”
Furthermore, regarding the Supreme Court’s private Conference, it is a private meeting (per the link on the Conference). That means nobody knows what the discussions entail except for the Justices and the Supreme Court is not obligated in any way to issue any kind of explanation for why they choose to deny or grant writs on cases.
Other notable links include the following:
- SCOTUSBlog.com: Supreme Court of the United States Blog, sponsored by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
- 2008 Term Court Orders: Official page of the Supreme Court where Orders to grant or deny writs, etc. are posted
- With Supreme Court Conference Looming, a Q&A with Philip Berg: Excellent posting by Jeff Schreiber over at americasright.com; Berg explains his current Hollister v. Soetoro case as well as a bit on Rep. John Linder’s (R-GA) form letter on objecting to the Electoral College certification.
- The Two Reasons Why Obama Will Neither Publicly Speak About Where He Was Born Nor Produce His Original Birth Certificate: Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog (this one is a recent posting) citing a great legal perspective on the eligibility issue
- Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB: Forensic expert Sandra Ramsey Lines debunks the online certification (as opposed to certificate) of live birth (Dr. Polarik further comments).
- Dunham v. Obama: Document Confirms Fatherhood, FactCheck.org UK-Kenyan Colonial Law: Barck Hussein Obama II’s biological parents’ divorce decree shows (1) BHO Sr. is, in fact, BHOII’s father (debunking many Internet rumors to the contrary) and (2) that 1961 UK-Kenyan colonial law does, in fact, flow to BHOII, thereby making him a British subject at birth.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
I think it is seriously misguided for anyone to think that somebody writing a letter to the Supreme Court will make them any more serious about the Constitution than they already are.
These people live, eat and breathe the Constitution. To write “Wussy” on their pictures, or call them negligent, scared or clueless is not only an unwarranted insult to them, but also to the United States of America.
Denied as usual. We citizens don’t have standing as voters (but we can be thrown in jail for voter fraud; how convenient), so we might as well boycott the next election, if there is another election.
So, back to standing. When do we as voters have “standing”? Let’s pose a scenario. Let’s assume an election is so close that 1 vote changes the election in a state. Is this when I have standing? Is my vote the tie-breaking one? When do I have standing? Is it when I make over a million dollars a year? Is my vote more important that my neighbors’? Is it when we have 20 people in a room? Is that when I have standing?
That’s right, the courts have concluded your vote means nothing. They have flat out said you don’t have a say or interest in the electoral process. Therefore these “representatives” don’t represent you, me, or the chap down the street.
According to the Constitution, the “representative” is supposed to represent us. Chalk that up to the “Constitution is Broken Item #427″.
Now that the 365 Senators and Representatives have officially violated their Oaths of Office and have betrayed their Constitution and their Nation it is time to draft Recall Petitions for each and every one of them.
Any word on How Broe v. Reed went today?
Jim D,
That exchange has never been proven to be true at this point.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
At some point a commenter on this site cited a C-SPAN Senatorial debate between Keyes and Obama during which Obama appeared to have acknowledged the differnence between Senatorial and POTUS eligility. Doesn anyone recall the commenter and/or does anyone recall the exchange to the extent that I might be able to review it. Thanks.
St Lucie,
I posted this yesterday on another thread. I think is a dead end.
Cris Ericson,
I called Hawaii to try to get clarification on the statutes listed on the bottom of the COLB, got a bunch of recordings and never talked with anyone. Will try later. Dealing with government forms for the last 40 years says to me that the listing of HRS 338-13(b) and 338-19 on the bottom of the form is standard(and probably required) and refers to the statutory authority governing these forms. I think you will find this on almost all, if not all, government forms. The reference to 16, 17, and 18 doesn’t necessarily mean those sections apply to this particular COLB. It means those sections apply if conditions mentioned in 16,17 and 18 are present. I couldn’t read the wording on the bottom left hand corner of the copy that I have.
Eric
The numbers at the bottom of the Obama Cert. of Live Birth tell an interesting story….alterations to Cert. 2001
See: http://crisericson.com/
FedEx Supreme Court on Obama’s eligibility
WND makes it easy, cheaper to ask justices to resolve questions
WASHINGTON – You can make sure the Supreme Court justices have a piece of your mind when they review a case Friday, Jan. 9, and again Friday, Jan. 16, challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the office of president can only be filled by “a natural born citizen.”
Because the Supreme Court justices do not accept faxes, e-mails or telephone calls, there is only one way to make your voice heard in time – overnight delivery of your letter.
WND is making that easy and inexpensive to do for a limited period of time in the next week as the justices review yet another case challenging Obama’s eligibility. Through 1 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 14, you can send letters to each one of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices urging them to take seriously the constitutional issues at stake in establishing the eligibility of the next president.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85433
Open Letter to Congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjhkHTcU2ug
The video is part of a presentation that I made for Congressman Tom Cole. I personally delivered this to his office in Norman, Oklahoma.
The audio comes from a true Patriot, a Vietnam Vet from Arizona.