Berg v. Obama, Lightfoot v. Bowen, Brockhausen v. Andrade: Decisions and Hearings
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphases mine]
Regardless of what any Supreme Court Justice, President, Representative or Senator does or says, we see a “beyond the shadow of a doubt” guarantee that no law in America shall keep the concerned citizen from being able to petition a case in which they have reason to believe that the same government — tasked with upholding all tenets of this document — is overlooking even the smallest part thereof. In the case of the President-Elect’s eligibility, the question of his credentials is always an open one; if by no other grouping of citizens, then certainly by we, the People.
I have heard much opposition on this blog and many other places across the blogosphere and in the media (where it’s actually a consideration) that the mere questioning of a politician’s eligibility for the office of the presidency is met with rank disdain, in almost taboo fashion. I have to wonder: what’s the fear in asking questions? Is this not a classically liberal proposition? Are we not all to hold those who govern us accountable to — at the very least — the basic, fundamental document that is our highest law of the land? To wit…
We await judicial action on the following dates:
- Wednesday, January 21: The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition of Berg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page.
- Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hear Brockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elect’s eligibility.
- Friday, January 23: Dr. Orly Taitz‘ case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, goes to Conference, essentially asking the Justices for an emergency stay to keep California’s Electoral College Electors from voting. If the Justices make a decision on this day, the Orders would likely be released between 2 and 3pm ET. This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs include an Elector and a candidate for the vice presidency; theoretically, these two classes of citizens could overcome the standing hurdle.
- The docket officially shows that Dr. Taitz’ suggestion for all Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from being involved with the President-Elect’s inauguration has been received.
Other noteworthy links include the following:
- Congratulations to Dr. Orly Taitz for becoming both a member of the Bar and an officer of the United States Supreme Court.
- Excellent letter to the editor of the Washington Times questioning (gasp!) the President-Elect’s eligibility.
- UbiReVera blog similarly believes eligibility is certainly not a frivolous issue.
- As RedState points out, isn’t the incoming Administration at least going to vet its inaugural religious leader invite list for Ingrid Mattson, who is suspected of ties to Hamas?
- Maybe you, too, can get free LASIK surgery if you’re similarly named, “Barack Hussein Obama!” It’ll require a birth certificate though!
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here; currently known State-based electoral reform initiatives can be found here.
-Phil
34 responses to Berg v. Obama, Lightfoot v. Bowen, Brockhausen v. Andrade: Decisions and Hearings
Phil, do you think the recycled Clinton administration folks have gotten “burnt-out ” and the only two-bit-game-plan: they can throw against the wall, and is the attempt to intimindate the hard working American public?
Remember, obama plays with the Mac- keys for Sal-Olinsky Propagnda, instead of the blue dresses of interns, for amusement!
Just Imagine, Obama is there Burning the “18 minutes” of evidence of fordged documents and laughing at the whole country for being gullible idiots!
Don’t worry Phil, these were just the first of intimidation mass distributions to media and foot soldiers, sent out to harrass, blogs and conservativesn while they are laughing about the fraud they are working on!
“TWO-BIT: OBAMA, BRAIN WASHING STRADGEY”,
I’ll be posting soon on how the President-Elect will need to govern in order to make it past 2010 with the Democrats still in control; it’s a bit of theory that I’ve believed for some time.
The guy still has to get things past 535 people in Congress, and the Democrats are already talking about how they’re going to have to cut taxes for middle- to upper-income folks in the upcoming stimulus package.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Any update on the Indiana lawsuit against DNC and RNC filed around Christmas?
AnAmerican,
I’ve wondered about it, too, but no news as of yet. Kind of like Jody Brockhausen’s case, I wouldn’t expect to hear too much about it until (1) someone hears directly from the Plaintiff(s) and/or (2) a decision has been made.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil, if all Conservative Assoc. Justices Recuse Themselves, from deciding Obama’s Cases, then which (liberal) body would appiont replacements?
What is ur opinion that the SCOTUS , WERE AFRAID TO RULE AGAINST, SAL-OLINSKY DUDE, ON ML KING HOLIDAY, BUT THE RULING AGAINST HIM WILL COME ON 21ST?
The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.
C Justicesn Recuse, Do Liberal, H Reed, N Pelosie, appoint 9 alternates?,
I have no opinion on the point you make. I’m simply watching to see what happens and then commenting based on what I know.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil,
In your opinion, based upon your best judgment, please give your likely scenario for the outcomes of the various present cases/motions, and likely future cases/motions as regard to BO eligibility in regards to SCOTUS. These would be considered educated opinions, not predictions.
Pete,
Since the Supreme Court receives literally thousands of petitions for writs, injunctions and the like during its term and subsequently grants a few hundred, the odds would be against these cases being accepted.
Having said that, I would make note that Dr. Taitz’ Lightfoot v. Bowen case is the first eligibility lawsuit to make it to Conference that includes an Electoral College Elector and a candidate for vice president as Plaintiffs.
Will this make any kind of difference? I haven’t the slightest idea. A lot depends on the type of case and the remedy sought to right the perceived wrong.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil,
The Supreme Court granted AMICUS CURIAE. Does this put the burden of proof on obama? If so could the private meeting with Chief Justice Roberts be related to this burden?
Thanks Sandy
Sandy@Sandy’s,
One anonymous theorizer, as I mentioned in the posting, seems to think that the Justices were accepting certain premises by granting the amicus brief. Regardless, my opinion is that the onus of eligibility is always on the candidate to produce; it should not be an obligation of the People to request.
We’ll simply have to see what happens this week.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090116-1.html
Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 1104(a)(1), 3301, and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, and in order to simplify and streamline the system of Federal Government personnel investigative and adjudicative processes to make them more efficient and effective, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. (a) When agencies determine the fitness of individuals to perform work as employees in the excepted service or as contractor employees, prior favorable fitness or suitability determinations should be granted reciprocal recognition, to the extent practicable.
(b) It is necessary to reinvestigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:
(a) “Agency” means an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include the Government Accountability Office.
(b) “Contractor employee” means an individual who performs work for or on behalf of any agency under a contract and who, in order to perform the work specified under the contract, will require access to space, information, information technology systems, staff, or other assets of the Federal Government. Such contracts, include, but are not limited to:
(i) personal services contracts;
(ii) contracts between any non-Federal entity and any agency; and
(iii) sub-contracts between any non-Federal entity and another non-Federal entity to perform work related to the primary contract with the agency.
(c) “Excepted service” has the meaning provided in section 2103 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include those positions in any element of the intelligence community as defined in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to the extent they are not otherwise subject to Office of Personnel Management appointing authorities.
(d) “Fitness” is the level of character and conduct determined necessary for an individual to perform work for or on behalf of a Federal agency as an employee in the excepted service (other than a position subject to suitability) or as a contractor employee.
(e) “Fitness determination” means a decision by an agency that an individual has or does not have the required level of character and conduct necessary to perform work for or on behalf of a Federal agency as an employee in the excepted service (other than a position subject to suitability) or as a contractor employee. A favorable fitness determination is not a decision to appoint or contract with an individual.
(f) “Position of Public Trust” has the meaning provided in 5 CFR Part 731.
(g) “Suitability” has the meaning and coverage provided in 5 CFR Part 731.
Sec. 3. Agency Authority to Set Fitness Criteria and Determine Equivalency. The authority to establish criteria for making fitness determinations remains within the discretion of the agency head. Agency heads also have the discretion to determine whether their criteria are equivalent to suitability standards established by the Office of Personnel Management. Agency heads shall take into account Office of Personnel Management guidance when exercising this discretion.
Sec. 4. Reciprocal Recognition of Fitness and Suitability Determinations. (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, agencies making fitness determinations shall grant reciprocal recognition to a prior favorable fitness or suitability determination when:
(i) the gaining agency uses criteria for making fitness determinations equivalent to suitability standards established by the Office of Personnel Management;
(ii) the prior favorable fitness or suitability determination was based on criteria equivalent to suitability standards established by the Office of Personnel Management; and
(iii) the individual has had no break in employment since the favorable determination was made.
(b) Exceptions to Reciprocal Recognition. A gaining agency is not required to grant reciprocal recognition to a prior favorable fitness or suitability determination when:
(i) the new position requires a higher level of investigation than previously conducted for that individual;
(ii) an agency obtains new information that calls into question the individual’s fitness based on character or conduct; or
(iii) the individual’s investigative record shows conduct that is incompatible with the core duties of the new position.
Sec. 5. Reinvestigation of Individuals in Positions of Public Trust. Individuals in positions of public trust shall be subject to reinvestigation under standards (including but not limited to the frequency of such reinvestigation) as determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to ensure their suitability for continued employment.
Sec. 6. Responsibilities. (a) An agency shall report to the Office of Personnel Management the nature and results of the background investigation and fitness determination (or later changes to that determination) made on an individual, to the extent consistent with law.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is delegated authority to implement this order, including the authority to issue regulations and guidance governing suitability, or guidance related to fitness, as the Director determines appropriate.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order shall not suspend, impede, or otherwise affect Executive Order 10450 of April 27, 1953, as amended, or Executive Order 13467 of June 30, 2008;
(d) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 8. Effective Date and Applicability. This order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to excepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 16, 2009.
Readers,
There is a long battle ahead of us and there are too many issues for just one Group to address. Many of us who are hopping from group to group and blog to blog are feeling frustrated because there seems to plenty of information, but no direction on how to take coordinated action. If we are to return the power back into the hands of We The People and take back our Country, we NEED Unification.
Today, too many of us are spread out across the internet and the sites that we visit DO NOT have the technology in place to allow their MEMBERS to work in a collaborative fashion. How can we engage in a peaceful resistance when we are pulled in various directions and just end up spinning our wheels?
I have outlined a proposal on creating a United Coalition. The Coalition would be a Group of Groups. This will allow particpating Member Groups to retain their own identites, members and “causes” while allowing us to organize, plan and implement strategies across a larger scale. This will also allow us to share resources and exchange ideas across Groups so we can avoid duplicating our efforts.
Please read more about the PROPOSAL for The United Coalition of We The People USA http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/group/unitedcoalitionofwethepeopleusa and read the Welcome letter in the Group Discussion section which details this effort and discusses why a Coalition is neccessary.
THERE IS GREAT STRENGHT IN NUMBERS. OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS IN GREAT PERIL. ONLY BY UNITING WILL WE HAVE THE POWER TO PROTECT AND DEFEND IT.
Exactly what does that order from the President mean? Why is it so important to get a federal employee to step up to the plate?
Maureen,
Apparently, according to the EO, only federal employees can hold federal officeholders accountable for misdeeds; that’s what I got out of it after a quick scan of the order.
-Phil
there is a 99.9999999999999% probability that this case will be on the denied cert list on the SCOTUS website on 1/27/2009. None of these cases has made it passed a judge anywhere in the United States.
Mr. Berg was turned down for the second time on Friday (not on the list on Friday).
DCL,
At the risk of sounding rude, you truly have the innate ability to observe the obvious
Of course, the next question is, “Why?,” and that’s typically based on a standing — not a content — issue. Further, nobody knows if Berg’s application for injunction has been denied to date (despite the odds not in Berg’s favor); we’ll have to see.
Isn’t it great, though, that not everybody goes through life thinking that if the stats are against them, then that means they shouldn’t pursue some cause or action?
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
As challenges mount, ardor for Obama cools abroad
By WILLIAM J. KOLE – 22 hours ago Associated Press
Barack Obama got a global standing ovation long before he was elected president. But in a fickle and fast-moving world, the overseas reviews are already turning mixed.
Though much of the world will party through the night Tuesday after Obama is sworn in as America’s 44th president — just as it did when he was elected — there are signs the ardor is cooling as the sheer weight of his challenges sinks in.
A deepening global recession, new hostilities in the Middle East, complications in closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan — an impatient world has a stake in all of them and is asking how much change Obama can deliver.
“Just two months ago, the future president seemed a cross between Superman and Merlin the magician,” Massimo Gramellini wrote in a commentary for Italy’s La Stampa newspaper. “Now he himself admits he won’t be able to keep all his promises, and who knows? Maybe someone will ask for his impeachment by the end of next week.”
I am posting a link for a t-shirt design that my daughter and I worked on.It’s racy and clearly identifies the “usurper”.If I make a few bucks I will donate the $$$ to Orly,or Pidgeon,etc…those fighting in court.
Please go check it out and see what you think.
http://www.cafepress.com/saverepublic
Here is the most comprehensive review of what is known about Obama that I have come across. It outlines the groups and individuals that are behind Obama, who paid for his education, why Nation of Islam and black activists helped him, what the democrats have ignored and who has propelled him into office. When he was a senator in IL he had Nation of Islam staffers. Carole Moseley Braun is part of a Communist front group as is John Conyers.
It goes into the real possibility that Obama Sr. was a fellow radical friend of Malcolm X. Malcolm X is quite possibly the father of father of Obama. It would explain why he was propelled to high office and why he looks so much like him. It speculates on the reason that Barack Obama went back to Chicago was to find his roots, identity and his real father. Malcolm X is most likely his father, if not biologically at least philosophically. He writes extensively about X’s influence on him and it explains why he had the way paved for him. It goes into his foreign friends too.
We quite possibly have a fraud, a man using a false identity and a Communist groomed agent about to take office.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html
Well, it’s official. John Roberts WILL swear Obama in tomorrow making him the 44th president of the USA. They didn’t think Orly’s lawsuit had any merit. Another one bites the dust…….
Phil,
You are gracious of you to respond to my recent request in such a timely fashion. Your opinions appear prudent, based upon the very factors you cite. The recent release of the new POTUS order for January 16th seems strange for this stage of a sitting POTUS. The impact on the existing debate appears profound, and unlikely to be coincidence. What are your views here?
Pete,
If you’re talking about the January 16 Miscellaneous order by the Supremes, I wouldn’t read much into that.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil,
“Federal employees can hold federal officeholders accountable for misdeeds”, does this mean that Federal employees have ‘standing’?
Kain,
How can you say that Orly’s case didn’t have merit when it is scheduled for Confrence on the 23rd?
Pete,
It would be interesting to see how the Judiciary treats an Executive Order in such a situation.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I think it’s amazing.
I fear, however, we’ve yet to see a real concerted effort to silence us. What I’m saying is that it is possible that eventually, if this keeps up, he’ll have to deal with it somehow. It seems to me that the possibility of the other side vilifying and demonizing us is pretty strong. We’ll be painted as unpatriotic, obstructors of the common good, traitors, and guilty of treason against our country. It seems like it’s just a matter of time before that kind of rhetoric might start trickling down, especially now that he’s getting sworn in.
Carol Greenburg has to pay possibly thousands in court fees. What’s next?
AmericaMustKnow,
Two things:
1. Fear is “false evidence appearing real.” The next President must appeal to the entire nation, and nobody knows what he’s going to do until such time as he begins signing or vetoing bills from Congress.
2. Yes, Carol Greenberg and, likely, most other Plaintiffs will have to be paying court fees, assuming they all lose their cases. However, that’s not necessarily something that’s wrong. After all, someone has to pay for the court’s time in considering these cases. Frankly, I think that a “loser pays” system works best in the Judiciary.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Oh my god. Malcolm X and Barrack Obama are both black! Oh my god!!!!!!! I knew it!!!!!
I just heard Obama was adopted last year by to US citizen parents so he can make the argument that he has 2 US citizens as parents. I saw it on burgs blog and the poster saw it in a news paper.
written by Karen, January 20, 2009
T. Roberts — No, I’m worried about that adoption. It was a very weird thing for Obama to do just WEEKs after Resolution 511 and right around the time he began being asked for his Birth Certificate. Who was the last POTUS to be adopted several months before taking office? The article said it was not merely honorary. CAN you adopt an adult? BHO is referring to these Natural Born Citizens as his mother and father.
Biz,
I fail to see how that would make any difference with respect to his citizenship status at birth which, as Leo Donofrio had originally brought to light, is the key point, in my opinion.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Every one of the 7,500 or so lawsuits that petition for a Writ of Certiorari are heard “in conference” by the Supreme Court. It is the “conference” that decides whether or not a case has merit to be heard by the full Court. Each year the Court agrees to grant cert to less than 100 cases. In 2007, the Court actually heard 67 cases.
The Supreme Court currently operates using what is known as “the cert pool.” 7 of the 9 Justices have voluntarily agreed to participate in the “Cert Pool”. This means that all the cases that reach the Court by submitting a petition for a Writ of CERTiorari are divided up between those 7 Justices equally. Which case ends up with which Justice is selected at random and it is each Justice’s law clerk who reads the case and makes a recommendation to their Justice as to whether the case should be granted a Writ of Certiorari or not. A Writ of Certiorari simply means an agreement to hear the case at some time in the future before the whole court to decide it on its merits.
When “conference” meets, the Justice from the Cert pool makes a recommendation via what is known as a “pool memo” to grant Cert or deny Cert. The Court has agreed that it takes the agreement of four Justices to “grant cert” and hear (Known as “The Rule of Four”) a case before the full Court.
At the current time Justices Stevens and Alito do not participate in the “Cert Pool” which means they make their own independent decisions along with recommendations by their law clerks as to which cases they will recommend be granted Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.
If a person (like Berg, Donofrio or Taitz) is denied a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari they can resubmit their case and it will be scheduled for conference by another Justice in the Cert Pool.
Phil,
I read somewhere that Orly’s case is not on the docket anymore. I can’t find it by searching the Supreme Court docket (I am not experienced at that site). Do you know anything about this?
Sharon 2,
Take a look at any of the docket links in my “Supreme Court Info” widget on my sidebar. The SCOTUS docketing system is apparently experiencing some problems this evening.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil