United States Supreme Court
1 First Street NE
Washington DC 20543

Attention: Honorable Supreme Court Justice David Souter

Honorable Justice Souter,

We are writing to you with very serious concern for the protection of our Constitution of The United States. We are aware of the suit pending in your court filed by Phil Berg against Barack Obama for Mr. Obama to bring proof of his being a natural born United States citizen. We are joining Phil Berg in asking you to protect us from the possibility of fraud by ordering Mr. Obama to produce an original birth certificate. We do not need to waste your time with details of what Berg has filed, you already have it.

What we want to share with you is as follows, if you feel the need to verify our credibility, please contact Honorable John Linder, of Georgia, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Conrad Burns of Montana, Thelma Drake of Virginia.

I enlisted in the United States Army in 1972, as a Viet Nam Veteran I feel I have earned the right to see that the person that is about to fill the most powerful position in the world is truly a natural born citizen of The United States. During my military service I had responsibilities that required top secret security clearances. During the back ground investigations at each level, if I had been associated with a terrorist group, been involved with drugs, found convicted of any felony crimes, etc., I would not have been approved any of my clearances. My father served eight years in the United States Air Force, 11 years civil service in Viet Nam and died of cancer caused by agent orange at the age of 42. Three of his brothers served in the military. My older brother was killed in Viet Nam 1968. My younger brother served 22 years Navy. His three sons are currently in the military taking their turns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our eldest son just returned from Iraq, third tour, one tour Afghanistan, wounded twice. Our son- in- law served four years in the Marine Corps, one tour in Iraq. I can keep going and branching out, my point is our family has given all we have to give our country and have earned the right to have the questions about Mr. Obama be answered. We took an oath when entering the military to protect The Constitution of The United States and most of us I believe will continue to carry that responsibility to our graves.

Please take this seriously and order Mr. Obama to bring proof that he is a Natural born United States citizen, his original birth certificate. Please do this prior to him being sworn in as President. If he is a citizen, we will go away and support our President. If he is not a legal citizen, we expect our judicial system to do their job as ours will have been done. If he has lied about this, he can not be trusted to the secrets that protect the American people.

Respectfully,

Danial

Pamela

Cc: Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Stevens, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

Underage U.S. teenager gets pregnant via a significantly older married man from Kenya. An unusual event in 1961.

Mother of teenager is in total shock over the event as would have been many mothers of teenage girls getting pregnant in 1961 and says to her daughter you have ruined your life and will make going to college much harder for yourself and convinces the teenage girl to go to Kenya in the last month of her pregnancy and give up the baby to the Kenyan natural family of the natural father of the child to be raised in Kenya by them.

The Kenyan grandmother of the child attends birth in Kenyan hospital in Mombasa Kenya and is ready to take custody of the child and raise the child for the foot loose and fancy free natural father with multiple wives … and the U.S. teenage mother is supposed return to Hawaii leaving the child with the natural father’s family and restart her life back in Hawaii minus the child … and go to college. In 1961, pregnant teenage girls giving up children to restart their lives anew was not unusual.

But nature throws the plan a curve ball. Maternal instincts kick in and mother cannot leave the baby in Kenya, either due to pure maternal instincts or in seeing the conditions in Kenya that her child would be raised in with a mostly absentee father over there. Thus she changes her mom’s plan and she takes the baby and birth certificate issued by the Mombassa Hospital to the American Embassy or consulate in Kenya and shows them the Kenyan Birth Certificate for her child and “explains” the baby was born unexpectedly in Kenya while there visiting her “husband’s” family. U.S. officials then stamp her passport as traveling with an infant child.

Mother gets on plane carrying the child and flies back to Hawaii and appears at the airport arrival with the new baby in tow, much to the shock of her mother, the child’s U.S. grandmother. Baby easily is passed through U.S. entry officials due to embassy stamp on mother’s passport and the supporting Kenyan birth certificate showing a U.S. citizen is the mother.

Child’s U.S. grandmother is still besides herself at this change in plans by the mother of the child. The child’s grandmother then knowing or learning from legal advisers how lax Hawaiian birth registration laws were in 1961, then cooks up a plan and scheme with the child’s mother, to lie to Hawaiian officials and swear and sign affidavits at the birth registry office that the child was born in Hawaii at home with no witnesses but them, in order to get the child U.S. citizenship (a highly desirable status) to make future travel and life easier on the family and new child. They did this lie and cover up simply to gain U.S. citizenship for the child a highly coveted status for any child, not knowing that this child might someday grow up and try to become the President and thus risk having their whole plans and lies exposed.

Birth registration office then issues the announcements to the two newspapers, as was the offices custom at the time to send the papers lists of babies born, of the birth event which at its source was only based on the false sworn testimony of the mother. Thus the birth notices in the newspapers are not independent data, they all came from the same source, … false sworn statements from the mother and/or grandmother that the child was born in Hawaii.

Thus under this narrative the birth records in the vaults in Hawaii may be simply sworn affidavits of the mother and grandmother saying Obama was born at home with no witnesses, all based on lies and fraud, which seems to be a common occurrence with Mr. O’s entire life.

JMHO and a suggested narrative to explain events and facts as revealed thus far.

http://www.thebirthers.org/

RJ

Ya’ll keep trying to move the goal posts on our judicial system. In the case of Pres Obama’s eligibility, he is presumed eligible until you who accuse him prove otherwise. A defendant in any kind case, civil or criminal has no obligation to produce evidence to assist the plaintiff in proving or disproving his case. Without facts sufficient to form the basis of a valid lawsuit, no case proceeds. Without a true cause of action, some evidence that Obama is ineligible at the outset, no case against him will proceed. Speculation, supposition, and innuendo that there’s proof if the court would just help you discover it is not a sufficient basis for a valid lawsuit. If anyone had any proof that Obama is ineligible, it would have come out before the election, the electoral college, the certification of the vote in Congress and the inauguration. Your relief is no longer in the courts, it’s in the Congress.

Actually, you have a right to your own opinion. Your first amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws that limit your freedom of speech. It doesn’t guarantee your right to say whatever you want anywhere to anyone. E.g. this blog, it’s yours, and although you are quite generous at posting viewpoints different from your own, you don’t owe anyone here the freedom of speech. I am always surprised at how many conservatives misunderstand what freedom of speech is.

Phil says:
June 16, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“So-called “birthers” are trying to enforce, not change, the Constitution; it is not the so-called “birthers”‘ fault if President Obama happens to be essentially the second President seen as challenging the presidential eligibility clause.”

You certainly are trying to ‘change’ the constitution and the justice system. You are insisting eligibility means 2 parents citizens – that’s not in our Constitution. You are trying to change our justice system by insisting Obama prove he’s eligible.

I’m not sure where you come from, but here in America, we have this concept known as freedom of speech. Inherent within that right is the innate ability to possess an opinion. However, the ability to possess an opinion and actively profess said opinion is not synonymous with making any kind of change.

Therefore, I completely fail to see the rationality that you’re trying to use RE: “insisting” [having an opinion] = “‘change’ the [C]onstitution”

After all, to use this same illogic, I could make the reverse claim that people such as yourself are trying to “change” the Constitution by continually stymieing individuals such as myself from petitioning the Judiciary to render an opinion on this issue. Naturally, that charge fails on at least two counts.

-Phil

You certainly are trying to ‘change’ the constitution and the justice system. You are insisting eligibility means 2 parents citizens – that’s not in our Constitution. You are trying to change our justice system by insisting Obama prove he’s eligible. That’s not how it works, and you know it, Orly, Apuzzo and Berg know it. The burden is on you folks to prove he’s not eligible. If you had enough proof to support a cause of action, you’d have had a case heard before the election. Now the election is over and Barack Obama is the President. And since you support the Constitution, you know the only way to remove a President is via impeachment and conviction by the Congress, not in the Courts system.

Earl,

You have not quite explained the difference between the criminal and civil cases. Your response is that the Defendant is presumed innocent in both criminal and civil matters and that’s simply not the case. Civil Rules are very different than Criminal Rules. Although you are right about the differing burdens, you are not quite right on the application. Civil Rules have no presumption of innocence or guilt and no party enjoys that right because there is only a contraversy that exists and if the plaintiff meets certain requirements, even with the help of the defendant in most cases, the case proceeds. With the current discussion, the Courts have deviated from their established practices and operations. Just to add, the Contraversy is that Obama is not eligible to be President and the Rulings have been that the only person who can challenge (standing) the eligibility issue is the very person(s) who stand to LOSE in the matter (the President, the Congress (whether Dem or GOP), the DOJ (which the President appoints), & (Yes, even SCOTUS which is established by the Constitution)—almost self governance, which is clearly a Constitutional Violation and deviation from Federalism. Everyone should be afraid of this type of renegade acts by the Courts. This has been unbelievable, where the same Courts that decide life or death & freedom or bondage will not stand for the same Document that allows them to render rulings and opinions in those instances. We all should be afraid and this is not about a party in power but about our heritage and legacy…..Good Discussion though!!!

My opinion of them is based on their cases. The cases they have filed are all based on trying to get a judge to turn the justice system backwards. I know they would never allow the same thing if they were defending a client against the same accusations.

OK. The truth of the matter is you really don’t know what they think, because — to correctly answer my question — you have not directly spoken with them nor had direct citations from them upon which you can reasonably make your claim.

And, really, you contradict yourself from the start by saying that “[m]y opinion is based on their cases.” If this is true, then your opinion is that they would do what they did, because you don’t know any better with any more confidence than you have at the moment to draw any other conclusion.

In other words, while you claim that they would never perform the inverse of their present actions, the truth of the matter is that you have no way of knowing that, based on actions already executed.

Furthermore, it is your opinion that they are “trying to get a judge to turn the justice system backwards,” simply based on the fact that you presume that all so-called “birthers” are trying to change the Constitution, which, of course, is a faulty premise from the start. So-called “birthers” are trying to enforce, not change, the Constitution; it is not the so-called “birthers”‘ fault if President Obama happens to be essentially the second President seen as challenging the presidential eligibility clause.

-Phil

“Have you, personally, spoken with any of the named individuals or can cite first-hand sources that have drawn the same conclusion that “[you know that] [t]hey know better?””

My opinion of them is based on their cases. The cases they have filed are all based on trying to get a judge to turn the justice system backwards. I know they would never allow the same thing if they were defending a client against the same accusations.

No court is going to address Obama’s eligibility because none of them can provide the relief you all are seeking. The only body that can do that is the US Congress. The CA judge was kind enough to spell that out for you.