Andy Martin Hawaii, Supreme Court Petition, Obama birth certificate, Writ of Mandumus, Obama in Hawaii

Andy Martin has been in Hawaii for several days investigating Obama and seeking an authentic birth certificate for Barack Obama. Yesterday Mr. Martin filed a petition with the Hawaii Supreme Court. Here is a copy of the petition formatted for the internet:

Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 70-6-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai’i contact:
Cell phone (917) 664-9329
Petitioner Pro Se
ANDY MARTIN,                     
HON. LINDA LINGLE, in her        
official capacity as Governor;   
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her       
official capacity as Director        
of the Department of Health,     
HON. BERT AYABE, in his official 
capacity as Circuit Judge,       


The question of the authenticity and public availability of the birth certificate of Senator Barack Obama (hereinafter “Obama”) has become a source of increasing embarrassment for Hawai’i Government.
Although Obama has purportedly posted a copy of his birth certificate on his own web site, and others claim to have posted other versions, Obama refuses to allow public access to the official records of the State of Hawaii.
Petitioner is an author and columnist who came to Hawai’i to do research on Obama’s years in Hawai’i. After arriving in Honolulu, Petitioner decided he needed a copy of the original birth certificate, as well as any official files relating to the issuance of said certificate.
The Executive Branch Department of Health has repeatedly and egregiously mischaracterized the Hawai’i statute governing access to birth certificates, and did so again on October 17th in a statement to the Honolulu Advertiser.
Petitioner applies to this Court for an appropriate writ, and offers two separate avenues of potential relief for the Court to consider.




This court has jurisdiction of this Petition pursuant to HRS § 602-5 (a)(3).




1. The Petitioner
Petitioner Andy Martin has been writing about Obama for over four years. Petitioner is the author of the best selling book “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.”
Petitioner publishes an Internet newspaper,, as well as related blogs, and
Although Petitioner is not a practicing attorney, he is a respected public interest and consumer rights litigator, see He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.
For example, in 2003 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Petitioner special leave of court to represent a U.S. Marine in a landmark case arising under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, see (see attached).
Petitioner is also highly controversial. His corruption-fighting efforts in the Illinois courts and federal courts have provoked intense hostility and counter-reactions from judges who were the targets of his exposures see These judges have sought to vilify and demonize petitioner, and Obama has sought to use these corrupt techniques to divert attention from Obama’s own questionable personal history.
Petitioner is undaunted.
In Hawai’i, petitioner is accompanied by a network television camera crew. Thus the bona fide news value of his current litigation activity is not subject to question.
2. The Respondents
A. Respondent Linda Lingle is named in her official capacity as Governor and Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of Hawai’i government.
B. Respondent Dr. Chiyome Fukino is joined in her official capacity as Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health.
C. The Hon. Bert Ayabe is named in his official capacity as a Circuit Judge of the First Circuit. As will be shown below, Judge Ayabe’s joinder in this petition does not necessarily involve any criticism of the judge and reflects the absence of any local rules to govern the judge’s authority.
3. The birth certificate (certificate of live birth)
A. For the convenience of this court, Petitioner has submitted a copy of the Circuit Court proceedings as a separate Appendix. Those documents are incorporated by reference in this petition.
B. In summary, Petitioner applied for and was denied a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Petitioner then commenced a proceeding in the First Circuit on October 17, 2008 while still physically present in Honolulu.
C. Petitioner notified Judge Ayabe of Petitioner’s limited availability in Hawaii, and requested or suggested an emergency hearing.
D. Judge Ayabe responded promptly through his judicial assistant with a hearing date after the 2008 election on November 7th. Petitioner was also notified that in order to exercise his rights and pursue his petition he would have to return from Chicago to Honolulu, as there was no provision for telephone hearings. (It was not clear whether the judge viewed the absence of telephone rules as a preclusion of telephone hearings, or was imposing his own individual rules of practice).
E. Petitioner was required to file his lawsuit in Hawai’i. No other court system has jurisdiction of local Hawai’i officials. Petitioner should be as welcome in the Hawai’i court system as a Hawai’i citizen would be on the mainland. There are no artificial boundaries or distinctions under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U. S. Constitution. If Petitioner must be present in Hawai’i in order to vindicate rights and remedies under the Hawai’i Constitution and statutes he will be precluded from doing so.
F. Hawai’i is a sophisticated international business center. It is simply impractical for parties to be physically present in the State as a precondition of access to Hawai’i government or the judicial system.
G.  Rule 11 of the Probate Rules provides for “Telephone Conference Call Hearings.” On information and belief there is no parallel provision in the Civil Rules.
H. Petitioner remains present in Hawai’i through October 22nd and available for emergency hearings in person.
I. This Court can take its own judicial or official notice that numerous state and federal court systems provide for telephonic participation, see e.g. Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.530.




This Court can deal with this petition by either one of two separate approaches.
First, the Court could decide that the Executive Branch’s misapplication and misinterpretation of the relevant statute (see Exhibit 1 to the Circuit Court Complaint) raises issues of sufficiently great public and national importance that the Court will entertain the issues presented as a matter of the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction. In that case the writ of mandamus, if granted, would issue directly to the executive branch and Judge Ayabe’s role would become moot and coram non judice.
Second, this Court could decide that the Circuit Court should conduct an expedited hearing, and do so either while Petitioner is still physically present in Hawai’i or while Petitioner is allowed to participate on the telephone, directing that the Circuit Judge either schedule a prompt hearing or ask that the case be reassigned to a judge who can conduct a hearing before the 2008 election. In that case the writ, if granted, would issue to the Circuit Judge.
The approach which this Court prefers to adopt is entirely at the discretion of the tribunal.




A. The constitutional issue
In Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct. 2673, (1976) the Supreme Court stated “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” The authenticity and contents of a presidential candidate’s birth certificate is at the apex of First Amendment concerns, Monitor Patriot v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 91 S.Ct. 621 (1971)(“[I]t can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.”)
To say that a proceeding will not be convened until after the election is to create the very type of unconstitutional delay precluded by Elrod, and creates a justifiable public suspicion of a conspiracy and cover-up by Hawai’i officials.
Elrod does not appear to have been cited by any Hawai’i court but has been cited numerous times by federal judges in Honolulu, see e.g. Rapp v.  Disciplinary Board, 916 F. Supp. 1525, 1539 (D. Hawai’i 1996); Walsh v. Honolulu, 423 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1108 (D. Hawai’i 2006); Swanson v. University, 269 F. Supp. 1252, 1260 (D. Hawai’i 2003); Legal Aid v. Legal Services, 961 F. Supp. 1402, 1417 (D.  Hawai’i 1997). Although Petitioner filed his Circuit Court lawsuit under the Hawai’i Constitution and not the First Amendment, this Court has previously interpreted those rights to be coextensive.
B. The procedural issue
There is an anomaly under Hawai’i procedure where probate rules provide for telephone hearings but civil rules do not. Perhaps this gap motivated the circuit judge to deny a hearing, or to adhere to such procedures as a general practice.
Certainly in the modern commercial age, with Hawai’i at the crossroads of international business, antiquated notions of physical presence as a precondition for access to Hawai’i government should be reconsidered. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution would also appear to lean in favor of allowing out-of-state litigants from the mainland to be heard by telephone.
C. The substantive issue
a. The statute
HRS § 338-18 (b) limits disclosure of records to persons having “a direct and tangible interest in the record.” The statute then provides thirteen (13) examples as illustrative, but not exclusive, including number (9): “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Respondents have steadfastly misinterpreted the “direct and tangible interest” standard into one requiring a direct and tangible “relationship” between the party and the record. Thus there is a serious abuse of discretion and statutory misinterpretation by the executive branch. The Respondents have persisted in this misinterpretation despite notice that their interpretation of the statute was a misinterpretation, and will no doubt proffer the same misinterpretation to this Court as their initial response to this petition.
Researchers, scholars, writers and news media—and Petitioner has attributes of all of the foregoing—have a “tangible interest” in many public citizens without any “relationship” to those persons. Petitioner is sensitive to privacy issues and identity theft issues. But no one is likely to try to hold themselves out to be “Barack Obama” using a birth certificate issued by Respondents.
Nevertheless, the very vehemence with which Hawai’i officials have misconstrued a state statue, and the manner in which Obama has attempted to manipulate and control access to his personal records (see infra), raise legitimate suspicions in the mind of the public.
b. The waiver and admission issues
Obama claims that he has posted a conformed copy of his birth certificate on a web site. It is impossible to say whether this assertion is true, because Petitioner has no official copy to compare to the Internet version. Obama has not posted any of the source information or supporting data. If Obama has posted a version of his birth certificate, it would appear he has waived any privacy issues and the statutory restrictions on issuance of a copy to Petitioner no longer apply.
It is indeed a very peculiar state as now exists where Obama claims he has released his birth certificate or at least his latest version of the document, and yet claims that no one should be able to obtain an official copy of the same document from the State of Hawai’i or review the source information for the certificate. Waiver would appear to be applicable and render nugatory any privacy concerns.
Obama has claimed he was born in a Honolulu hospital, but there is no verifiable evidence to sustain that claim. An examination of birth records is thus essential to resolve the lingering doubts.
As judges, certainly the members of this Court are aware that punctilious concern for accuracy would mandate that any counsel preparing a case in which the birth certificate was an issue, must obtain a certified copy and not a copy grabbed off an Internet web site. As an author and columnist, Petitioner adheres to the same high standards of accuracy in the search for original truth.
The fact that Obama has in fact posted his birth certificate on the Internet is a confirmation that he believes that issue is a topic of legitimate public interest.
D. The common law writ of mandamus
Petitioner has reviewed this Court’s jurisprudence concerning and construing the common law writ of mandamus. Petitioner submits that the extraordinary facts of this Petition provide a basis for extraordinary and emergency action. As the attached docket sheet from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court attests, Petitioner is experienced in preparing, filing and obtaining relief through extraordinary writs on an emergency basis.




Most respectfully, Petitioner asks this Court to take emergency action and to grant one of the alternative forms of relief outlined in this petition.
DATED:    October 20, 2008
          Honolulu, HI
Respectfully submitted,
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 70-6-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai’i contact:
Cell phone (917) 664-9329
Petitioner Pro Se”

Read more from Andy Martin here:

98 responses to “Andy Martin Hawaii, Supreme Court Petition, Obama birth certificate, Writ of Mandumus, Obama in Hawaii

  1. Very interesting events. It sure is strange if there was no issue with the Birth Certificate why won’t Obama release them. Smells foul to me. I really admire the people seeking the truth.

  2. Does this Andy Martin know O is heading to Hi?
    Lots of money can buy a fake BC but the person(s) involved will be silenced by O. Look for either or both.

  3. What’s Obama hiding, You have to show a real birth certificate to get a drivers license or passport, is Obama afread that it won’t pass the smell test. Why hide? My goodness, the only thing at stake in this whole matter is the Presidency of the United States!!!

  4. how can we find out what obama is doing in hawaii this week? why is nothing on the internet or news as to this date?

  5. I think you need to take off the tin foil hat. There is no way the Dems would have nominated him without a thorough background check– BECAUSE IT’S THE LAW TO BE A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN TO RUN FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

    If the man posted it on his website, for god’s sake, how much more proof do you need?

  6. Debunker.
    How does the kool aid taste?
    You are giving credibility to Pelosi, Dean & crew?
    The Obama camp put up several fakes.
    You cannot be serious!

  7. DeBunker,

    Your ilk are visible in every blog site that either opposes Obama’s falsehoods or dare I say questions them.

    Will Obama and his crew offer you a job after the election?

  8. Debunker- stated,

    “If the man posted it on his website, for god’s sake, how much more proof do you need?”,

    The truth. A real vault long version!
    The man is a proven liar!

    Dude, ask yourself why Obama has not released a copy to FEC then?

    Your statement of denial is same post used over and over on the blogs and has no merit.

    On another note, the court should just use in camera review in Berg’s case to determine by the Judge if case has merit.

    The protective oder by Obama and DNC would then be moot.

    however I believe that Andy may get results with the media coverage he is attempting in Hawaii.

  9. Thanks, Citizen Wells, for your diligence.

    I appreciate you – I also appreciate Jerome Corsi and Phil Berg —

  10. Don’t worry, after the Obamessiah becomes Supreme Ruler, he will abolish all Birth Certificates.

    We will only have Earth Certificates on which we are forced, at gunpoint, to pledge our undying allegience to Mother Earth as created by Lord Obama.

  11. Go Get him!!!!!!

  12. No offense but that Birth certificate poted on the Obama site can be easily xreated or altered by a graphic person. It looks as real as a three dollar bill. He wasn’t born that long ago. There MUST be valid records of his birth if indeed he was born in the U.S. I would have ignored this story had it not been for Obama now “suspending his campaign” to deal with this! The grandma story is a lie. THAT action of his makes me believe that this story is true and he is scared.

  13. missouri does swing

    One more thing. Senator McCain was not born in America. LOOK IT UP. He was born in Panama.

  14. Pingback: American Daughter Media Center - Front Page » Blog Archive » Why Is Barack Really Going To Hawaii?

  15. Panama canal zones was US territory;and he was born in a Navy Hospital.

  16. Hey Debunker,

    The “copy” on his website has been Debunked.

    It is a forgery, and several experts have proved it to be independent of each other.

    It is a poor fake made electronically from his half-sisters’ Certificate of Live Birth.

  17. “You have to show a real birth certificate to get a drivers license or passport, is Obama afread that it won’t pass the smell test.”

    Wait, so how did he get his driver’s license and passport in the first place?

  18. Missouri-Yes, McCain was born in Panama on an American base (from TWO American parents) which is the same as natural born.

  19. P.S. Even if we find BO’s bc, can he prove he was born in HI if the bc was issued for an out of hospital birth days later? His mom gould have been in Kenya when he was born and just reported it like an at home birth.

  20. Where is the courthouse where Obama’s alleged birth certificate resides? People should be posted at all the entrances during open hours all day Thursday and Friday to see if Obama or any of his relatives or staff make an appearance. Let’s all pray the truth comes out before election day. Many thanks to Berg and Martin and everyone else on the front line in defending our Constitution and our country. Also, can we get some more lawsuits going in some more states this week? I understand there are four now. How about 44 more states? Are there some patriotic lawyers out there who are willing to stand forth for our country and do this? Having lawsuits in all 50 states would have to finally gain visibility in the MSM.


    Again, this is not connected to this article, but a very good comprehensive set of arguments against BO.

    It’s a bit lengthy but then when the principles and convictions from which Obama speaks , are deeply embedded in his “oratorical” trap, one has to start from the outside and work inwardly.

    I think the final paragraph is the best example of Obama’s wish to leave America defenceless (and not only militarily as he describes). This is all under the guise of global unity and peace. It’s supposed to sounds lofty and grand, but ultimately is crazy making to anyone who is really listening.

    Indeed all his stated aims are lofty and grand, and this is how he is duping half of the American public.

  22. Rather telling that the same date this was filed his “grandma” has become so ill that in 3 days he will go to hawaii to see her. If she were that ill he would have left immediately, and if she isn’t it could wait until after the election. Smells kind of fishy.

  23. Up Your Arugula

    missouri does swing – says “One more thing. Senator McCain was not born in America. LOOK IT UP. He was born in Panama”.

    McCain’s original birth certificate has been made public, along with his medical records, school records, etc.

    Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints… no documentation… no paper trail.

    Original birth certificate… Obama – Dunham marriage license… Soetoro – Dunham marriage license… Soetoro adoption records… Punahou School records… Occidental College records… Pakistan Passport… Columbia College records… Columbia thesis… Harvard College records… Medical records… Law practice client list… ALL NOT RELEASED!

    Harvard Law Review articles… None (possibly one – not signed)

    University of Chicago scholarly articles… None

    Basuki School application… Released

    Illinois State Senate records -None
    Illinois State Senate schedule – Lost

    The Illinois State Archives told Judicial Watch that they never received any request from Senator Obama to archive any records in his possession. In 2007, Obama told Tim Russert that his records were “not kept.”

    Give Me A Break… Does this sound like a guy with nothing to hide?

  24. Wow. This is laughable. If this was truly an issue, McCain and his camp would have been all over it…and rightfully so.

  25. i’m not big on politics
    although i did watch the debates and whatnot

    but i heard mccain also lied about where he was born?
    i’m not trying to take sides, simply curious.

    i voted for ron paul originally.

  26. Our politicians are not working within the law, they are all crooks and this just might be the “mistake” that allows congress to amend the Constitution so that people who are not natural citizens to become president of the U.S.

    They already tried to get Arnold ok’d for the presidency and have already had bills on the floor for this exact situation.

    So, if they get him in, then it would be easy to sell the “mistake” and ammend the Constitution!

    Remember, they do not play within the laws, the rules of late are to break them and then write new laws to fit what you are doing! Kind of like a dictatorship with elections and a change of the guard every so often so we have the appearance of democracy!

  27. I think the only way this would get out is if voters banned together to sue the Obama campaign, Obama himself, the DNC, and the Secretary of all 50 states for MONEY…IE 604 million dollars in a Class Action Suit for fraud in civil court.

  28. Obama, besides comforting his grandmother, will surely also take the time to talk to her about his birth, and make sure she is prepared for the media storm, if one develops. I’m sure very few people have ever asked their grandparents and parents about the EXACT details of their birth; I know I sure haven’t.

  29. inappropriateone

    Still beating this drum I see…keep it up gang…you’re only helping to “seal the deal” for the new President of the US… Check the latest polls…when are you guys going to get it??? THIS is the way it was meant to be…

    Give it up and mail it in…

  30. I think we should boycott them both and vote third party. Isn’t it obvious that both sides are owned and controlled by the “Power Structure”. Let’s just get over the ‘argument’ of Dems or Repubs and find someone to unite behind. I had hoped it would be Ron Paul but too many Republicrats could not hear him. He’s endorsing Chuck Baldwin and he would be 100 times better than either of the pundits ‘they’ve’ given us to choose from. IT’S TIME TO UNITE!! 😉

  31. if you people think that Barack Obama is the new renidition of the messisah you better do some more reading up the subject. if you think he has all the answers then you better wake up. in no way shape or form is he ready to take over the runnnjg of of the largest free country in the, entire free world. our world as we know it is about to change drast ically. is this what you truly want? or do you bringing a viet nam era vet to ther forfront of this once great nation? is it truly truly the beginning of the end for . if at possible prayer for for nation and our fellow country men or live s as we know it. God bless you amd God bless America.

    Sincerely in God We Trust.

    John J. DeTemple

  32. He is going to hawaii to visit his very sick grandmother. I have to say I thin you guys are grasping at straws. McCain was born in the Panama Canal region, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a citizen. Obama was born in hawaii they do have to do background checks.

  33. insanitycheck

    One more thing. Senator McCain was not born in America. LOOK IT UP. He was born in Panama.

    Missouri Does Swing

    Hello!!! He has shown his birth certificate and he was born on a U.S. Military Base. He IS a US Citizen.

  34. Snopes has already debunked this…. Barack is American, born in Hawaii. The only people you’re preaching to here….is the choir, and does you no good…

    Both are Americans, love this country, and have opposing views on how to take us forward. We would be much better served talking about THOSE issues, rather than such trivial issues, that have already been addressed.

  35. No one appointed Snopes
    Supreme Court Justice
    Final say on anything.
    Snopes is wrong and has either done a lousy or biased job in this matter.
    It would not surprise me if they had been bought by the Obama camp.
    You may quote me.

  36. ladylennon:

    You’re an idiot to think that the DNC vetted the guy very far. He submitted a form that is made if a person has been born outside a hospital, like in a taxi on the way.

    Since we know that it didn’t happen, then we know that this was a ruse created to prevent further research into precisely where he was born.

    Numerous people in Kenya have said they were present at his birth in Coast Province Hospital in Mombasi.

    And Barry Lauterwasser, you don’t know JACK. Snopes based their findings on the Jew organization, the Annenberg Foundation, which Barry Soetoro helped them scam 100 million dollars of YOUR MONEY.

    Snopes based it on a phony birth certificate that lacked an official stamp nor the numbers that could be looked up.

    The Fraud that is Obama is due in Hawaii Thursday, probably with a suitcase full of that 150 million from suckers just like you!

  37. Mike McConnell (Conservative radio host of WLW Cincinnati) stated that all it took was one parent who lived was a US citizen and lived here for 5 years. It could be an out of country birth, or in any state, territory, or possession. Matters not, The child is considered a natural born citizen. There was vigorous debate on the show about this, but it was repeatedly told. So unless concrete proof comes out that his mother didn’t have citizenship or was in the country 5 years, he is a citizen. Sorry.

  38. You people forget that OBIE came up the Chicago way. There is no requirement to prove citizenship for state senate or even for US Senator. Your word is supposed to be good. But if anything looked fishy, a well-placed Benjamin should take care of it.

  39. dumbworldorder

    Thank you for taking this up Citizen Wells. Give them hell!

    I admire you for sticking up for the little person (the tired, the sick and the weak who are too tired, sick or weak to blog).

    Maybe once this whole thing has blown over, and Obama drops out of the race in disgrace, maybe you can solve another mystery that has been troubling the American people. You know that whole “who really killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldberg” thing.

    Please at least consider it, and please don’t ever stop.

  40. No offense.
    Mr. Berg is more learned and better informed than Mike McConnell. Mr. Berg does a superb job of explaining all of this in the lawsuit. If you have not read his motions, other filings and explanations, I suggest that you do so.

  41. freespeech1787

    Mike McConnell (Conservative radio host of WLW Cincinnati) stated that all it took was one parent who lived was a US citizen and lived here for 5 years. It could be an out of country birth, or in any state, territory, or possession. Matters not, The child is considered a natural born citizen. There was vigorous debate on the show about this, but it was repeatedly told. So unless concrete proof comes out that his mother didn’t have citizenship or was in the country 5 years, he is a citizen. Sorry.

    You and that moron radio host need to learn how to read more than beer advertisements.
    Technically, the mother HAS to be 19 years old for this to kick in. The slutty mother was 18 (knocked up at 17 by the roving Kenyan Negro, who went on to father 2 more from another dumb white girl) when she popped out the SCAMSTER of the Century, Obama in the Mombasi Hospital.

    Besides, he registered as being Indoneision to get in school in the fifth grade. That’s been proven without a doubt.

    The guy is NOT a US citizen. Incredible!

  42. Here’s the legaleze:

    Nationality Act of 1940, as Revised June 1952 and in accord with United States of America vs Cervantes-Nava 281 F 3d 501 (2002) and Drozd vs INS, 155 F 3d 81, 85-88 (2d Circuit 1998)

    Senator Barack Hussein Obama II would not ever have been a Legal US Citizen at all, unless he was Naturalized.

    Now, if his slutty mother was not married (Michelle did a trial ballon on this thesis) then the question of 19 comes in. But if she was legally married to Mambo-Jambo (not by a Witch Doctor), then he was automatically rendered a baby Kenyan! Or baby God-knows-what.

  43. naturalized citizens CANNOT become president.

  44. Look, some of you need to spend some time looking at the facts and then make your decision on this issue. Too many are making or drawing an opinion without spending any time researching or reading. Instead they read something and then go off like some expert. While I do agree this is an issue of concern and all Americans deserve a straight answer it’s important that you base your opinion upon what the facts state vs. some blogger! BO deserves more than what he is receiving from this country. I’m voting McCain/Palin anyway and everyday!

  45. Yeah, Obamanation deserves to be thrown in prison. Instead, there’s a good chance he’ll end up this country’s first African Dictator (literally)and will oversee the final destruction of the White Middle Class.

    Yep, this is what it’s all about ladies and gents. Next year we’ll all be on our knees and then they’ll roll out the North American Union and it’s bye, bye America.

    Whites will eventually end up a spat-upon minority. Figure it out, Brainiacs!

  46. Pingback: Top Posts «

  47. One more thing that’s being overlooked – Obama can not (if he applied for a Federal job – other than president) pass to get Top Secret clearance. Imagine that – a president not qualified to see top secret documents! Are we nuts or what? Disqualifications: 1. Dual citizenship 2. Admitted drug use/abuse. 3. Questionable affiliates and associates. Family in foreign countries with possible inflluence. Then of course the citizenship thing.

  48. thatonegaykid,

    Remember to vote the first Wednesday in November.


    I think Barry was born in Kenya. His paternal grandmother claims to have been present. Then mommy brought Barry back to Hawaii where she took up with, and married, an Indonesian guy. That’s when Barry’s (Soetero) muslim path began…..and we STILL don’t know what the heck he was doing over in Pakistan for a little trippie back then. Pakistan was a closed society back then. Nobody went there unless it was for drugs or jihad training….oh wait.

    Let’s roll.

  49. Pingback: Isn’t THIS intriguing??? « Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

  50. The citizenship and naturalization laws in place when Barry was born, stated that a mother , giving birth abroad, needed to be, herself, a US citizen for no less than 10 years, 5 of which were to be beyond the age of fourteen. Obama’s mama was only 18 at the time of his birth in Kenya. These are facts, disclosed in the original petition by Berg. Barry was then adopted by an Indonesian gentleman who married his mother. This made him an Indonesian citizen. There is no other record available showing BO has any other citizenship.

    The reason no one is hearing about this in mainstream news, is the same reason BO isn’t getting ripped for his radical associations and the fact the he stated he is compaigning in all 57 states in order to win the Democratic Nomination. If McCain had made a slip like that, we would still be hearing about it.


  52. SHame on you people,,! Americans can be so ignorant and decieved like little lemmings.

    Obama will win and you ignorant racists may progress towards being human beings!!

    Look forward to that! A country with THINKING people and less REACTIONARY republicans paying attention to dumb rumors!!

  53. Megalomaniac Andy Martin who was not allowed to practice law because of mental and character defects has struck again.

    I have never read more meritless rubbish.

    Hope they make you pay attorneys’ fees, Andy.

  54. greyghost,

  55. Arlen Pastle:

    SHame on you people,,! Americans can be so ignorant and decieved like little lemmings.

    Obama will win and you ignorant racists may progress towards being human beings!!

    Look forward to that! A country with THINKING people and less REACTIONARY republicans paying attention to dumb rumors!!

    No, it’s you who’s the ignorant little lemming. Turn on your TV and watch how they media is pushing Obama and even ignoring real details about this guy.

    And I love your typical liberal drivel: “progress towards being human beings!!”

    It’s White liberals, like yourself undoubtedly, who prefer being lied to by the mainstream press, so as to keep your delusions afloat. Just like how Black crime is blacked out by the media so as to not keep Whites in the dark about the real deal.

    It’s little wonder that people have had it up to here with you liberal idiots!

  56. Are you kidding me? He’s not checking in on his poor little sick granny. Obama’s probably going to go put his grandma on a little extra medication so she will drift silently in and out of sleep so no one will be able to pull the secrets out of her. He’s probably afraid someone will get to her eventually, like a doctor, nurse, or attendant. Someone should get an order to tend to her welfare! She’s probably in more danger than we all know!

    And if he has proof that he’s a U.S. Citizen, then he should have provided it to the court. He didn’t so case closed. He must end his run for presidency!

  57. I agree. Hs visit isn’t just to see his grandmother otherwise he would have taken his family so they too could say good-by to granny. Why isn’t this entire question out in the open – on the news?!?!?

  58. Pingback: The Strata-Sphere » Obama’s Trip To Hawaii And Birth Certificate Controversies

  59. In the Berg v Obama lawsuit, the FEC has responded to the suit, asking to be removed from the suit as it is not the responsibility of the FEC to verify a candidates eligibility. THE FEC only verifies a candidates eligibility to participate in public funding, which, Obama is not participating in. So, we now have the FEC washing their hands of verification, as well as the FBI washing their hands (The FBI does not do any background check on a Presidential Candidate who is already a member of Congress). So, who actually verifies eligibility? No matter what your oipinion of Obama is, we all should ask the question and receive an answer. Who is actually protecting the Constitution?

  60. Joseph B– I had NO idea that the FEC only vouched for eligibility if the candidate accepted public financing. Yet ANOTHER reason why Obama went back on his word. He probably didn’t know about that little wrinkle until he cronies told him about it. I’ll tell you what– there is something about Obama that is so untrustworthy it literally wakes me up at night. I’m convinced his funds have been padded by our enemies, and I’m convinced that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I hope America wakes up, and wakes up FAST. We only have 11 more days to make sure Americans vote for the ONLY candidate who has– and will– always keep America’s interests first… and that man is John McCain.

  61. Everything about Obama is off. His entire past is Anti-American in one way or another. It’s scary. He’s scary. What is most disturbing is his ties to known Communist supporters -even in his teen years. Just as important is his natural ability to capture large crowds with seemingly little effort. What to do?

  62. GOOD LUCK! Dem’s, all have blinders on. They all smell, like the magical Kool Aid aid they have guzzled down. Also do not forget, if you question anything about the BIG “O”, your a racist.

  63. Read : REVELATIONS Chapter 13, verse 5. Obama fit well in it !

  64. Vote for John Mc Cain he is not a liar . He is a christian not a muslim. He did not cheated his Birth certificate. He is right for mthis Nation.

  65. Don’t trust . They are debunking any criticism about Obama . Makes sense because the founders of that website are left wing liberals .I have been watching that site closely .

  66. Joseph B // October 23, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    In the Berg v Obama lawsuit, the FEC has responded to the suit, asking to be removed from the suit as it is not the responsibility of the FEC to verify a candidates eligibility. THE FEC only verifies a candidates eligibility to participate in public funding, which, Obama is not participating in. So, we now have the FEC washing their hands of verification, as well as the FBI washing their hands.

    We all should ask the question and receive an answer. Who is actually protecting the Constitution?
    Joseph B
    You have brought up a very good and important question in all this mess. Just who, is protecting our US Constitution in matters such as this? Or, who should be performing this important task. It appears that it is left up to chance and maybe us, John Q. public citizen. This one almost slipped through the cracks. It seems that our government officials are asleep at the wheel.


  67. In the Berg v Obama lawsuit, the FEC has responded to the suit, asking to be removed from the suit as it is not the responsibility of the FEC to verify a candidates eligibility. THE FEC only verifies a candidates eligibility to participate in public funding, which, Obama is not participating in. So, we now have the FEC washing their hands of verification, as well as the FBI washing their hands.


    This was the real reason Obama declined public funding. The only one who’s ever done so and gives him the total ability to buy this election with non-stop advertising. Note that Goldman Sachs is his principal backer and a name we hear often these days with the bailout mess. Hank Paulson in the Treasury and his flunkie — a guy named Neel “Kash-Kari” of all things — are both Goldman Sachs people.

    When will America wake up to the lying bull? You are due for real slavery in a Socialist/Multicult Hell and you spend all your time watching Dancing with the Stars and NFL football.

    You make me sick.

  68. This is better than a soap opera. Will anyone who has any idea of what is going on, stand up. Applause everyone.

  69. There is no room for applause here.

    This election by the Obama campaign has been complete “smoke and mirrors”.

    Should he win, those who don’t support will lose, and those who do will lose also.

    The wealthy who think theirs will be protected will be more impoverished. The poor will be more impoverished, if not with money, with opportunity.

    Whites will feel betrayed and Blacks will feel it moreso.

    Those who vicariously express their hatred through BO, will discover that they are no less hateful. Those who await peace and goodwill, will face more despair than they currently experience.

    This is what awaits all, when smoke and mirrors is all you have.

  70. Pingback: Obama’s Daddy A Pervert Commie? « INCOG MAN: Sick of all the BS, anymore…

  71. RealMinuteman

    Get ready.


    And there’s not a damn thing you can do about.

  72. I’m a Brasilian citizen typing from Rio de Janeiro very far from you, but this election is about the future of the world! Whatever happens to your country will affect all of us! I love you and your love for Freedom and Truth!In my opinion, the only hope that a real “better world” is possible is to preserve the good and old values which your country represents! Here, in Brasil, we use to say: ” Throw away the dirty water (of the bath) but keep the child…”Because of my english I don’t know if you understand but, anyway, I’m here to beg you not to do that! If you want a real CHANGE, do it keeping the child of Freedom and Truth alive! Please don’t let a stranger or anyone bring us any doubts or any risks of another “september,11” to our hearts and minds, we don’t deserve it! The world will be grateful. I LOVE YOU!

  73. The Obama document is a Certification of Live Birth. This is not to be confused with the longer Certificate of Live Birth that has the hospital name and doctor/witnesses signature. If Obama was born in Hawaii, they have a filed copy of the longer Certificate of Live Birth. They do not normally give that out because it takes longer to find/copy and certify that than it does to print a Certification of Live Birth from archived data. Most places will take the Certification of Live Birth as all the documentation they need. You can get your longer Certificate of Live Birth (in spite of the miss information on “” that there is nor box to request it.) In the box for “reason,” you write for Depart. of Homeland Security. They want the longer version because the shorter one does not contain enough data. Obama has failed to do this. Why? He has 600 million in campaign funds donated to him. Money can not be an object. An additional note is- you could have gotten a shorter Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii in the early 1960’s even if you were not born there. It was a service they provided for people who lived in Hawaii for at least one year before the birth (as I understand it.) That is why the Department of Homeland security does not want the short version. They have to spend a lot of time investigating the other details to verify you are actually who you claim to be.

  74. Here is the latest. Will this be an interestng week for the Obama campaign!

  75. Is this case still on for Nov. 18? I do not see any ruling on a petition for dismissal. The Motion for Order to Show Cause is on the Hawai’i Supreme Court Minutes for Nov. 18.

    Case I.D.: 1CC08-1-002147

  76. I have heard nothing to the contrary.

  77. What does Obama have to hide? We need to stop Obama from ingnoring or contitution. If he gets away with this what will he do next. Thanks you Andy Martin for taking this to our courts for them to get to the bottom of this.


  78. In just a few short weeks, the United States Supreme Court will rule you ineligible to be sworn in as our next President. “The Rule of Law” is supreme in “our” country. As a citizen of Kenya or probably Indonesia, you may want to read the United States Constitution!

  79. TRS… I hope you’re right, that the Supreme Court will agree to look at this case (they can and do decline to take on more cases than they hear every year). Last I heard, they were going to see if at least 3 justices would find merit and issue a writ of certiorari asking for the document our president elect doesn’t want to turn over. I got as far as the court’s October document list and was sad to not see the Berg v Obama writ listed. The Ocotber list is here at
    If anyone knows how to search a daily list of writs issued, that’d be wonderful to see, or if anyone knows how to call in to the court and ask how its going! I’d like a day by day blog entry on this to know if it can uncover the truth before he gets sworn in. I am holding my emotions in check at just wanting to uncover the truth. I’m a true conservative…and I wouldn’t want him booted if he really is a US citizen.

    Secretly though, when the court refuses to hear the case (because to a court, there’s no crime until there is evidence) I do hope he has a head cold and lies the Oath of Office on national TV with a stuffed up Donald Duck voice.

  80. Sorry, I messed up in my reporting…it’s four justices that have to smell a rat and agree to issue a writ. Luckily, until Obama replaces three of the five conservative justices with liberal justices ( which will certainly be rapidly approved by the majority liberal congress Acorn elected), there is still a 5 to 4 conservative majority in our 9 justice Supreme Court.

  81. As an attorney, as much as I want to see Martin win, his petition has no legs and will get nowhere. He would have got more traction had he just put his time, money and effort into an ancestor research service to find several willing (read $$$) folks who have a common ancestor with Obama and all they would have to saunter into the office that holds Obama’s BC and get it on the spot, as the law of Hawaii mandates those who have a common ancestor be given the BC. I emailed Martin and he knows he can do this, as he responded to my email.

  82. Have you seen the info regarding his scanned version of his birth certificate on fact checker. I don’t know it seems they’ve handled it.

  83. Ruben, He has not proven that the document shown is not a forgery. The state of Hawaii will register births in that state from foreign countries. The long form birth certificate is required to put our doubts to rest. Just consider this, why in the world would he have all of his documents sealed from the State of Hawaii, Kenya, Occidental College, Columbia College, Harvard Law if there wasn’t something that he was hiding. We can not afford to have an unknown entity as our president. Seriously, do you?

    There are too many people out there that would just love to destroy us from within. And this is the fear we have of this man. He is the one that will destroy us from within. Think about it! Where did he come from and who are his mentors. Read his books and you will find out!

  84. Ralph McCormick

    Follow-up story: Mombasa Imam who confirmed Obama’s birth place arrives in the UK
    Posted by africanpress on November 9, 2008

    The Imam who came forward to assist in the search of Barack Obama’s identity left Kenya secretly last night, and will arrive in the UK this morning. He will meet with a US contact person who will assist him in recording an asylum statement in the UK after handing over the documents that caused the blessing of Obama when he was born and to confirm the origin of the name Hussein.

    The man will join relatives in the UK because his life will be in danger if he were to return to Kenya after removing the documents from the Mosque’s archives and taking them out of the country. The man has been informed about the on-going case filed in the US Supreme Court by attorney Philip Berg challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship.

    When the man heard that Jerome Corsi was in Kenya a few months ago, he took a decision to try and meet him, but had to travel back to Mombasa from Nairobi on hearing that Corsi had been bundled and taken to the airport on deportation orders.

    The Imam is the grandson of the late Imam who blessed Barack Obama when he was born in Mombasa on the 4th of august 1961.

    While in the UK, the Imam and the American contact person will visit Amnesty International before handing himself over to the authorities where he will formally deliver his application for asylum. The contact man has arranged so that they get an official from Amnesty international to accompany them to the home office desk where he will inform them on he dangers that will face him if he were to return to Kenya after delivering the documents on Obama.

    This may now bring to close the speculations on Obama’s citizenship and the secrecy on where he was born.

    API will dispatch a detailed letter in support of the Imam’s – application for asylum and protection – to the UK Home Office Secretary later today. The letter will be made available on the site here, but minus the names of the Imam.

    African Press International

    This entry was posted on November 9, 2008 at 7:13 am and is filed under AA > News and News analysis. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

    You can click on the link above, but you will no longer get the story! Taken down by WordPress for improper use!

    Just in case Obama does make it (The Black And Angry One?), Here is a Nostradamus excerpt from Nostradamus Unpublished Prophecis by Arthur Crockett 1983 Page 43

    Excerpt* Is The Third Antichrist Now Named?

    His hand finally through the bloody Alus,

    He will be unable to protect himself by sea.

    Between two rivers he will fear the military hand,

    The black and angry one will make him repent of it.

    Is Alus the name of the third antichrist, or an anagram of it? In another quatrain it was Mabus. And this too might be an anagram. The interesting point here is that his quatrain ties in with the preceding one in which New York City suffers an earthquake and an attack.

    Now we see that Alus will fear the military hand between two rivers. Could they be the Hudson River and the East River? The last line which speaks of a black and angry one making Alus repent of it is another mystery. Does it refer to a black mayor, or President? !!!! In any case, Alus obviously will be attacked in New York City by sea, with the opposing forces coverging on him through the Hudson and East Rivers. End Excerpt*

    Obama may be the Black and Angry One. I think he is the best choice. Still working on Mabus as many are!

    Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer Photos of Obama looks like he is the black and angry one compared to Hitler. Very smug photos!

    By Ali Sina


    I hope you don’t use my real name, only Joe Shadow.

  85. As much as I wish the information they say they have on Obama was true, the truth is that API is a complete fraud. No

    staff, no office, just a man, with a web log and a bunch of lies. Links to their staff don’t exist and they use a web log

    not have a web domain. Sad but true, many wishful and concerned citizens got taken for a ride by one rotten individual.

    More information shows that: “Their home page features a hideously amateurish series of photos of “African” looking

    people, with the caption “Our News Team”. No-one is identified. None of the click-through ID links work. Readers are

    invited to register to become “Corresspondents” (sic).

    No editorial board is named. Only one actual name is cited: their “”CHIEF EDITOR KORIR”, who ” IS A MEMBER OF


    A review of their archives reviews a curious, patched together assortment of press clippings and releases on various

    topics. However, their top and ongoing American news story is anti-Obama coverage that essentially reproduces,

    uncritically,most of the major smears promulgated over the last year.

    The “African Press International” is owned by “The Rainbow Foundation”, to which they provide a link – which turns out to

    be a website created last week, on another WordPress blog spot. The “Foundation” lists a number of objectives that oddly

    have nothing to do with Obama or US politics. They also list a number of “projects” being run by the Rainbow foundation:

    however, it turns out there AREN’T any actual project. What there is a list of countries where they say they’re GOING to

    run projects at some unspecified future date – but NO projects.

    Now, there IS another “Rainbow Foundation” – NOT the one that “owns” African Press International, but an authentic

    charity. And THEIR website has an urgent note up warning folks of a fraudulent “Rainbow Foundation”, soliciting funds and

    making claims using their name.

    So we have allegations being made by “news agency” on a blogsite, owned by a “Foundation” that claims to have been in

    operation since 1995, but whose website was only set up last week – a foundation WITHOUT ANY PROJECTS except a website

    that smears Obama, and apparently appropriating the name of a real children’s charity. In short, an obv

  86. The Court ruled against Martin, is he going to appeal. It is outrageous that the court would rule not to produce the vault birth certificate citing the interest of the public for privacy. Let’s see how many requests in the last 50 years have there been in Hawaii for a birth certificate of a President elect. The threat to the public must be enormous. What a pant load. I hope Mr. Martin immediately appeals.

  87. McCain has and always was a natural born citizen based on U.S. Code 1403. Read it and weep all you idiot liberals!!

    § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

  88. Here’s the denial by the court folks.

    look what this guy said that was funny.

    Preston Taylor Holmes // October 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Don’t worry, after the Obamessiah becomes Supreme Ruler, he will abolish all Birth Certificates.

    We will only have Earth Certificates on which we are forced, at gunpoint, to pledge our undying allegience to Mother Earth as created by Lord Obama.

  89. westsidedavid

    I wish to reply to this posting, because it, along with several others, contain numerous bits of misinformation, leading to an errant conclusion.

    Now, I wish to be quite fair about this, because I realize that many people who are caught up in this co0ntroversy have a great deal at stake emotionally and intellectually, so my explanation will tend to be rather lengthy. I will try, however, to make it clear.

    Several persons have brought suit in various courts around the country and have raised in various public forums issues concerning whether Barack Obama is indeed a natural born citizen. These litigants claim that Obama has failed to prove that he was born in the United States. They claim further that there is credible evidence that Obama was born outside the United States.

    By bringing lawsuits, these people have asked the courts of the United States to grant several forms of relief. Some have asked the courts to order Obama to produce additional documents to prove that he was indeed born in the United States. Others have asked the courts to declare Obama not qualified to run for the presidency on the grounds that he was not born in the United States. To date, no court has ruled in favor of these claims, and some courts have rejected them. The United States Supreme Court now has before it a petition to hear an appeal from one of these cases.

    Because the people challenging Obama’s eligibility to run for the presidency have taken their claims to court, it is reasonable to begin by considering how the courts handle this sort of claim.


    When someone goes to court, neither that person — generally referred to as a “party” — nor the court invents new rules for each case. The courts have prescribed rules. By going to court, a party, the “plaintiff,” agrees to follow those rules. By bringing the other party, the “defendant,” to court, the plaintiff can compel the defendant to follow the same court rules.

    There are several rules that are relevant to the cases brought against Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and various state officials who are officially charged with conducting elections in various capacities. There are two rules that have come to play in the suits against Obama. The first rule has to do with something called “standing,” and the second has to do with the “burden of production.”

    Standing has become a source of considerable controversy. Some commentators have made comments that this idea is something new. It is not. It has been around the courts for many years. The basic idea underlying the concept of standing is that only a person who has a true interest in a case should bring that case.

    Consider an example: if my neighbor Jones goes on to the property of my neighbor Smith and kills Smith’s prize cow, Smith can sue Jones. Can I?? No. I have not been injured.

    There is a closely related doctrine, called the “political question” doctrine. There are certain questions that the courts will not consider because the courts feel that the questions are better left entirely to the more overtly political branches of government, the executive and the legislative.

    Now, one of the questions in the various cases brought challenging Obama’s eligibility to run for the presidency is whether anyone who has brought any of these suits has standing. One of the most prominent cases in which this has been raised is that brought in Pennsylvania by Philip Berg.

    In that case, Obama and the various other defendants challenged Berg’s right to bring the case on the grounds that he is not being injured in any way that makes his injury any different from the injury suffered by anyone else.

    This seems to raise a problem. If every American potentially suffers an identical injury with every other American, does this mean that no one can bring a lawsuit to seek relief? The answer is “Yes.” Generally, this is the rule that keeps political questions out of the courts.

    Phil Berg is an attorney. To become an attorney, he had to study the procedure involved in the courts, and this included the doctrine of standing, and he had to prove his competence in understanding standing by passing the bar examination to become a practicing attorney.

    In his lawsuit against Barack Obama, Philip Berg knew about standing. The various defendants responded to his lawsuit by moving to dismiss the suit on the grounds that Berg did not have standing. Berg responded to this motion to dismiss by filing a Memorandum in Opposition, arguing that as a result of various prior cases, he had a sufficiently specific injury that he did have a right to bring this lawsuit.

    The timing of the motion is important, because the lawsuit between Berg and Obama involved several aspects all moving along at once. One of the more important of these additional aspects was that Berg sought what is called “discovery.” Berg served on Obama what are called “Requests for Admission.” These are probably best compared to “true-false” questions. Any party can served on any opposing party “request for admission,” and the party receiving these requests for admission must respond within a period of time set by the rules of the court, within 30 days. These Requests for Admission are allowed under what is called Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    The receiving party, in this case Obama, can respond to each of these requests in any one of several ways. He can admit; he can deny; he can assert that he does not know and cannot learn through reasonable inquiry (called “denying for lack of knowledge”); or he can interpose a motion that takes precedence over discovery.

    As a general rule, if a motion will end a case, then a party can respond to discovery materials with that motion, and that party does not need to respond to the discovery requests until the motion is decided. (After all, discovery can be a nuisance, and damnably expensive. If a party serving discovery materials has no right to bring the suit in the first place, why should the other party have to respond to discovery requests?)

    Obama and his fellow defendants responded to the Requests for Admission by filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. As I mentioned, Berg unquestionably knew about this Motion: he responded by filing a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion to dismiss.

    As soon as Obama and company filed that Motion to Dismiss, discovery stopped. This came before the 30-edays for responding had expired. This is not something that the court did to Berg to single him out for special punishment. It is not even something over which the court had any discretion. The rules of court say that if a motion to dismiss is filed, discovery stops automatically.

    This is where one of the more flagrant bits of misinformation comes into play. If Obama and company had never filed their Motion to Dismiss, Berg’s Requests for Admission would have been treated as admitted. “IF.”

    On October 24, Berg publicly announced that the Obama camp had admitted the various points covered by his Requests for Admission. World Net Daily accepted this announcement at face value, even though it mentioned the Motion to Dismiss. World Net Daily might be forgiven for this mistake. After all, they are merely journalists, and journalists often do a poor job of reporting legal matters, but when Berg declared that Obama had admitted the Requests for Admission by failing to give timely answers, he showed that his ethics as a lawyer are questionable at best. Either he knew that what he was announcing was not true, or he was demonstrating incredible incompetence.

    The trial court in Pennsylvania then ruled on Obama’s Motion to Dismiss. It ruled that Berg did not have standing, and it dismissed the lawsuit. Also, in a supplemental ruling, the court dismissed all pending proceedings. In other words, it ruled that Obama and company did not have to respond to any of Berg’s various discovery materials.


    When the trial court granted Obama’s motion to dismiss, Berg appealed. This appeal went to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit, the federal appellate court that oversees federal trial courts in Pennsylvania.

    Notably, an appeal is a legal proceeding. It is not a retrial of the facts. It is a reconsideration only of the legal issues decided by the court below. The appellate court cannot call for factual materials that were not considered by the trial court. The appellate court looks only at the record that had been submitted to the trial court, and asks if the trial court applied the law properly.

    In Berg’s suit against Obama, what Berg argued on appeal was that the trial court had misapplied the applicable rules of law when it ruled that he did not have standing.

    This means, of course, that the appellate court did not ask anyone to go forward with the discovery business. The Court of Appeals does not do discovery. The one question that the Court of Appeals considered, the only question that it considered was this: Did the trial court apply the law correctly when it ruled that Philip berg did not have standing.

    The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did apply the law correctly. Because of this, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling. Berg’s suit remained dismissed.

    Now there is one point to be noticed about this appeal. It was what is called an “appeal of right.” Berg had an automatic and inalienable right to appeal. The Court of Appeals could not refuse to hear his appeal, no matter what they thought of the merits of the appeal. Any parties who does not get everything the party asked for in the trial court can appeal, and the Court of Appeals must hear the appeal.

    By contrast, the procedure for going before the U.S. Supreme Court is very different. Essentially, no one has a right to take a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    To get a case before the U.S> Supreme Court, a party must petition for a Writ of Certiorari. A Writ of Certiorari is an order that actually goes to the pertinent appellate court and orders the appellate court to send the case on up.

    A party who has lost in a court of appeals can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case, by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. If the Supreme Court grants the petition and issues the Writ, then the case goes to the Supreme Court. More often than not, however, the Supreme Court denies the writ, and the case ends with the court of appeals’ ruling. And it is more often than not that the Supreme Court grants a petition and allows the writ. The Supreme Court receives and reviews about 50,000 petitions for writs of certiorari, and it grants about 80.

    When a party files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, that party will file a Memorandum in Support of the Petition. This is a written argument urging that the Supreme Court agree to hear the case. The opposing party, the winner in the Court of Appeals, will respond to this Memorandum in Support with a Memorandum in Opposition to the Petition, arguing that the Supreme Court should not hear the case, but simply leave the Court of Appeals’ decision alone.

    In his case against Obama, Philip Berg filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, with a Memorandum in Support of the Petition. He also again took an action so extreme as to bring his good faith into question. He filed an emergency motion, asking that the supervisory justice for the Third Circuit issue an injunction delaying the national election.

    This action was extreme because the date of the national election for the Presidency is set out in the Constitution. The election is to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. It is not to be held that day or some other time when the Supreme Court says it can be held. So addressing his motion for an emergency injunction to a justice of the Supreme Court who had specifically taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, Mr. Berg asked that justice to abrogate part of the Constitution. I hope no one is surprised that this motion to delay the election was denied.

    When a party who has lost in the court below filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, the other party has a right to file a response. Technically a response is not required, and against many of the petitions filed by semi-literate prisoners or “jail-house lawyers,” no response is filed. In the case of Berg v. Obama, the Supreme Court notified Obama and the other defendants that if they wished to respond, they were to file their response on or before December 1,

    Here is where another blob of misinformation has made its way onto the Internet. There are many web pages reporting that as of December 1, Obama must produce the original of his birth certificate. Actually, this is nonsense. I have no idea who started this rumor, but it is baseless. Remember: the Supreme Court is an appellate court. It is not a trial court. Evidence is factual information, and it only goes to the trial court,

    The only thing that Obama will present on December 1 is a Memorandum in Opposition to Berg’s petition for a writ of certiorari. This will be a legal argument in which Obama and company will try to convince the Supreme Court that the rulings by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the trial court were right, that Berg does not have standing.

    As mentioned, Obama and company are not even required to file a respond to the petition, but in all probability, they will. Berg, after all, is a lawyer, and this is a case of some importance rather than being the result of a jailhouse lawyer, so a response will probably be filed.

    Notably, this Memorandum will probably not be anything that most Americans will find dramatic, moving, or even readable. If the average person were to read it, he would probably develop a response along the lines of how Scott Turow, author of “The Paper Chase,” had to reading cases as a law student: he felt it was like trying to stir concrete with his eyelashes.

    The great bulk of the Memorandum will be a very dry argument over the issue of standing. Does Philip Berg have a claim that is sufficiently differentiated from the claim of any other person to warrant being allowed to bring this claim?

    Then the Supreme Court will respond. Sometime after the Court received the various Memoranda from the various parties, and each of the nine justices ha considered the Memoranda, the justices will enter their private conference room. Under the direction of Chief Justice John Roberts, they will consider every petition for a writ of certiorari, and they will probably have more than 100 to go over. Most will get only cursory discussion. The justice will handle them about the way a tried, jaded personnel manager handles bad resumes. Chief Justice Roberts will read off the number and ask for discussion. If there is none, the case is marked for denial, and the justice move on.

    If there is discussion, every justice is free to join, and eventually the Chief Justice will call for a vote. If four of the nine justices decide that the case should be heard, then the writ of certiorari will issue, and the case will be set for written briefing and oral argument. If there are not four justices in favor of hearing the case, the writ will be denied.

    As mentioned, the odds against Berg are extreme. Standing is a well-established doctrine. The lower courts appear to have considered the issue thoroughly and thoughtfully, and because standing is the only issue before the Court, it will be a huge and unexpected in for Berg if he gets a writ of certiorari.

    If he does, even then, it will not mean that Obama and company must produce anything. It will mean that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear full arguments on the subject of Berg’s standing. But for the moment, assume that this did happen. If the Supreme Court heard Berg’s case in full, and if a majority of the justices ruled that he did have standing, would the Supreme Court then order Obama to produce the birth certificate? No. It would merely rule that the trial court was wrong, and it would send the entire case back to the trial curt with instructions to pick things up where they were and continue. Obama would then respond to the Requests for Admission; the trial court would consider arguments over what should Obama have to produce, and the whole matter would go on.

    All of that is unlikely, because the Supreme Court is downright stingy abut granting writs of certiorari. In all probability, Berg’s case, like thousands of others, will end in the Supreme Court with a terse, impersonal notice: “Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.”

    In some ways, that will be unfortunate, because it will mean a case that has aroused a great deal of emotional interest will end on a technical ruling rather than a ruling on the merits.

    However, there is already enough information available, and the issue on the merits is actually straight-forward enough that we can predict what a trial court would rule if the Supreme Court were to hear this case and send it back to a trial court for further proceedings.


    Any discussion of the merits of this dispute is muddled by one troublesome fact: this case has been tried in the media as much as any dispute since the original O. J. Simpson case. And the media treatment here has been even more driven by the emotional biases of the many media players involved. Things are being asserted as unassailable fact that are completely silly.

    Consider one of the more publicized items. Various websites what asserted that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother has declared that Obama was born in a village in Kenya. Question: Is this valid evidence? No. If Berg were to get a full-blown trial, he would not be able to introduce this. Why not? Because the woman is being asked to give testimony (to say that something happened), and a person’s testimony is generally not valid evidence unless it is given under oath in circumstances in which the witness is subject to cross-examination. There is no indication that this testimony was given under oath, and there is no indication that anyone representing Obama was allowed to ask her any questions by way of cross-examination.

    Further, what she said is far less than what is being trumpeted on the various websites. The woman does not speak English. She speaks one of the 62 tribal languages spoken in Kenya. And in translation, her statement is not a straight-forward declaration that Barack Obama was born in her village. The initial translation given by Philip Berg supporters was “Barack Obama is a son of this village.”

    Question: Does “Barack Obama is a son of this village” mean “Barack Obama was born in this village”? Is that the only reasonable meaning that could be given to these words. Or is this statement sufficiently ambiguous that it could mean any number of things. For example, there is an organization in the United States called the Daughters of the American Revolution. Does anyone seriously believe that the women in that organization are the immediate descendants, the literal daughters, of persons who fought in the American Revolutionary War? In churches, Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as the “son of David.” Does that mean that David is literally the father of Christ?

    Could the woman’s statements mean that she believes that Barack Obama was born in her village in Kenya? Yes. But before a court will consider this as evidence, she will need to give her testimony under oath, subject to cross-examination, and because she does not speak English, her testimony will have to be translated by a court-certified, disinterested translator. Then, but only then, a court can consider it as valid evidence.

    There is, however, evidence on which Berg v. Obama and other cases raising the same issue can be decided. To understand what the evidence is and how it could be evaluated, we need to return to something said near the outset: Because the people challenging Obama have taken their claims to court, it is reasonable to begin by considering how the courts handle this sort of claim. There are certain rules that are relevant to cases like the ones being brought against Barack Obama. One of those rules has to do with the “burden of production.” (Here I am borrowing material from earlier in this post, although this is not a true quotation/repetition of that material.)

    As far as I know, there have been very few lawsuits challenging the eligibility of a major party candidate to run for the presidency. (There was a lawsuit challenging McCain’s eligibility, decided on the issue of standing in 2000.) So the potential consequences of these lawsuits are relatively unprecedented. On the other hand, there is a specific point at issue in these cases, that is much more mundane. That point is really rather simple and straightforward.

    Stated in very general terms, the controlling legal question in this case is this: if a party to a lawsuit is required to prove something that the party can prove through the production of official documents held by official agencies of the State of Hawaii, what must that party produce?

    Now, as with the question of standing, I would urge that everyone pause and consider this question, because it is a matter of grave importance.

    There are several options here. Phil Berg (and others similarly situated) maintain that Barack Obama must produce the specific documents that Philip Berg has demanded. Barack Obama maintains that he must produce only the documents that he has already provided.

    And Obama is wrong.

    And Berg is wrong.

    Because the courts work under a system of rules of law, neither party gets to charge into court and demand that the rules that it wants are the new rules for a lawsuit. (Consider for a moment how any reader would feel if he or she were sued and the opposing party got to set the rules for the lawsuit. Would that be fair? Would it be reasonable?)

    So who gets to set the rules?

    Who gets to set the rules if it is neither Obama nor Berg?

    The answer, and this is the crux of this whole discussion –-:
    The State of Hawaii gets to set the rules.

    While that may seem odd, consider a few points: while this may be the most consequential case ever to turn on what an official state document claims, is it the first case ever to be decided on what an official state document claims? Certainly not. Every year thousands of people claiming to have been born in Hawaii apply for passports, submitting official copies of their birth certificates to the U.S. State Department to support the claim that they are U.S. citizens. By law, this has to be an official copy. In the same way, there are thousands of other transactions in which various people have to submit official copies of various documents from the State of Hawaii, for everything from the transfer of titles to automobiles to applications for business licenses.

    This is not something where agencies like the State Department, insurance companies, or the courts invent new rules every time a document comes in claiming that it is an official copy of an official document. To make the process rational and workable, the State of Hawaii has adopted standards for what constitutes an “official document.” In the case of a birth certificate, Hawaii has adopted a law, passed by the Hawaii State Legislature, signed into law by the governor, and on the books for all to see. The two statutory sections that define what an official Hawaiian birth certificate is are Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-13(b) and 338-19.

    Section 338-13(b) says:
    Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    Section 338-16 deals with procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. There is no record in the Hawaii state records of Obama’s birth certificate having been filed more than one year after his birth, or of it having been officially altered.

    Under section 338-17, a late or (officially) altered birth certificate offered as evidence has the evidentiary value that the court in which it is offered decides it shall have. Again, there is no suggestion that this law applies to Obama’s cases.

    Section 338-18 is important to this case. It defines who has a right to get an official birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. Notably, it’s a very exclusive list. Basically, it is limited to people who have a direct financial stake in the affairs of the individual. Notably, a political stake does not qualify.

    Finally section 338-19 reads:
    § 338-19. Photostatic or typewritten copies of records.
    The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.

    What’s all that mean? It means that the Department of Health is not required to produce a true exact duplicate of the 1961 data. There have been complaints among those alleging fraud that the Certification of Live Birth that the Obama camp has posted clearly looks like something done by a laser printer rather than the sort of typewriter that would have been used in 1961. This statute says “that’s fine.” Birth certificate is still an official birth certificate no matter what sort of device produced it, so long as it has the data on it, so those allegations of forgery are completely baseless.

    Now, what does all of this mean? It mean that according to the State of Hawaii, whose rules control in this case, that the Certification of Live Birth posted on the Internet by the Obama people is a legally sufficient document.

    Can a court order that the State of Hawaii produce the “original, original, original” birth certificate that Philip Berg and company insist is the only real proof that they will accept? Legally, no. Not unless they can prove that the Health Department’s copy as posted on the Internet is somehow bogus.

    On that point, given the sheer number of requests, the State of Hawaii has pre-empted the courts. The State of Hawaii was not legally required to respond to all of the ballyhoo this issue has raised. Legally, it could have said, “Go away” and nobody would have had any right to make it go farther.

    The State of Hawaii did not do that. In late October, the Hawaii State Health Director personally examined the original birth certificate in an effort to address numerous requests for the document. The Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, said she and the vital statistics registrar viewed and verified Obama’s birth certificate. Further, they verified that this birth certificate has been handled like every other birth certificate in the normal order of business. That means that the State of Hawaii has vouched for the total veracity of the certificate as posted by the Obama camp.

    And what of all the claims that the posted Obama certificate is a forgery? Well, the State of Hawaii, which has the un-forged original, says that the version that Obama has posted is real.

    But what about . . . ?
    And what about . . . ?
    But what about . . . ?
    And what about . . . ?
    And what about . . . ?
    And what about . . . ?

    I’ve been trying to figure out some very compelling argument about this. My view is that the legal system will work through this case on December 5, when the justices of the Supreme Court will meet in conference, and they will get to Berg v. Obama, and they will rule that this case does not warrant inclusion on the Court’s busy calendar.

    Will that silence the doubters? I do not believe it will. I believe that many will continue to cry out that Obama is not qualified to be President because he has not proven to THEIR satisfaction that he was born in Hawaii.

    What can I say to them? Well, I suppose I can try this: How do you think the Apostle Thomas felt, touching Jesus’s wrists and side, when Jesus chided him with, “Oh, ye of little faith”?

  90. Both my kids are born in Maui Hawaii and both of the Birth Certifeicates look like Obama’s. These are all I have and the only ones I have been given. They do not show the hospital where they are born but I know it is the only one in Maui and you cannot call and get that info because of privacy laws. I lost my original years ago and now I can only get a copy. Does that mean I wasn’t born in California? And I was home birth not hospital.

  91. Warrior From Pennsylvania

    When is the Supreme Court going to make a decision one way or another?

    If Obama runs ‘rough shod’ over this Amendment and Article of the Constitution, we have no assurance the Supreme Court will uphold our First and Second Amendments.

    This will bring on greater concern and activity to protect our American way of life.

    We will not allow American socialists and the one world government to suck us into oblivion.

    Why are the network news people IGNORING all the suits from multiple states in questioning Obama’ s legal right to become President of the United States?

  92. How many of you in this blog can demonstrate you have the original birth certificate(s) that can convict everyone in this world that it is not fake?

  93. Would you elaborate please.

  94. I believe there is great deception in Barack Obama. He is a Harry Potter (witchcraft-sorcery) book lover and read 4 to his young daughters. God will reject him from being leader as He did King Saul for the same type reasons. I expect God is ready to set up a surprise IF we want His ways.

    So you do not fight God’s choice, remember this: The goal in life is not employment; that caused world problems. The goal in life is a retirement lifestyle by creating a garden paradise with trees, plants and animals that give food around us. That restores our health and families and solves the world problems at the same time.

    This is a time for correction of religion. The blessings are tied to obedience and all we are seeing is cursing of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Jesus said to live by EVERY word of God, that includes the Torah called the Law of Moses, the first five books of the Bible. The primary message of the Qur’an (600+AD) is to follow the whole Bible, not part. That is what Jesus was saying. The Qur’an and the New Testament do not contain the Bible, they point to it to be followed. It is the same in other religions. God promised to unite us; but we have to look at the errors of our religion and follow what is written to our prophets. God has not given a divided message; He is not a deceiver. It is errors of religions passed down that made the differences. Exodus 20 has the Ten Commandments and by them you can see our whole culture is corrupt before God. This is time for the restoration of all the word of God has said.

    The Kingdom of God has One God over all mankind with one way of worship, live by His word. If you are interested in the Kingdom of God and trust the truth of what I have just written, see and pray for God’s way. He will put His candidate in the office. If not, we deserve what we get. There are only two powers, Satan (the father of lies) and God (the truth, the way, and the life… It is written.)

  95. I am incensed that Obama is about
    to become president and the
    issue of his birth certificate has not
    been resolved and therefore he
    is not eligible to be president.
    Pres. Bush is a man approved by
    God, the right man at the right time
    worthy of two more terms. The
    Supreme Court had a tiger by its
    tail and no plan for dealing with
    his teeth. The Inauguration must
    be stopped or we deserve what we
    get. Perhaps there is hope with
    Homeland Security which I don’t
    think would give Obama a free pass
    as did the Supreme Court.
    Phyllis Kunz

  96. is Obama Birth Certificate Petition gone from web?

  97. To the one that claimed {wrongly} that Obama could not have ran because the law states that one must be a natural born citizen for the office of president the rest that is not there never says they are required to PROVE it, although it has always been assumed that would be done if needed. He can’t prove it, or he already would have. He has screwed over the intent and wording both of the thing he most despises, the law and intent of the U.S. Constitution — but he doesn’t care, he’s not a natural born American anyway so from there to swearing on a Bible he most likely does not believe in either to rapidly unfolding events that are costing lives and economic stability of the entire country it just gets worse and worse.

  98. What is the latest information concerning this lawsuit? What has happend to this case?
    I would apreciate any information you can affford me.
    thanks, D

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s