Category Archives: National Press Club

Obama not natural born citizen, Obama ineligible, Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court must review, December 8, 2008, Obama’s father British, Act of Congress, British Nationality Act of 1948, US Constitution, When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 31 comments

From time to time I publish a comment placed on this blog. This comment is substantive and well presented
by commenter Bob.

“Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.’”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.'”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can  take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.””

31 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, District Court, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC, Count Down, December 4, 2008, Jonathan Turley, Constitutional law Professor, Leo Donofrio versus Connecticut Secretary of State, Turley is wrong, Donofrio contacted Turley, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama not eligible

Posted on December 4, 2008 | 10 comments

** Update below **

Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional law Professor, is scheduled to appear on MSNBC tonight, Thursday,
December 4, 2008 on Count Down. According to Leo Donofrio, Jonathan Turley is wrong about his lawsuit,
Donofrio versus Connecticut Secretary of State, that is currently before the US Supreme Court
“JONATHAN TURLEY, CON LAW EXPERT GETS IT WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately he got it all wrong.  Here is the comment I left at his blog. It is awaiting moderation, but other comments have been cleared since I left mine:

naturalborncitizen 1, December 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Mr. Turley,

My name is Leo Donofrio and my application before the Supreme Court says, within the body of the pleading, that I believe Mr. Obama is a Citizen of the United States – born in Hawaii. Your report above is not accurate.

My law suit challenges his status as a “natural born citizen” based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject.  Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth.  He was also a US citizen “at birth”. He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidate’s status “at birth”, hence the word “born” in the requirement.

You have completely mis-stated my lawsuit. I have repeatedly said, over and again, that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I have criticized everyone who has said Mr. Obama is not a citizen. I believe he is a “native born citizen”, but not a “natural born citizen”.

The law suit is based upon what distinction the framers drew between the requirement for a Senator and Representative, which only requires “Citizen” status as opposed to the requirements for President, which requires “natural born Citizen” status. As you are aware, this is an issue of first impression for SCOTUS.

Please do not go on national TV and mis-lead the viewers. For a more in depth discussion, please see my response to today’s ABC News faulty report at:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

** Update 8:12 PM **

I just watched the segment. Apparently Jonathan Turley got the message about Donofrio’s argument.

Here are some quotes from Olbermann and Turley:

Olbermann

  • “Crackpot lawsuit”
  • “Dumbest lawsuit ever”
  • “Yes, this crap again”
  • “Bogus claim of citizenship”

Turley

  • “Odds heavily against”
  • “Argument not going to appeal to justices”

I never watch MSNBC for obvious reasons. They were in bed with Obama during the election campaign.

Keith Olbermann please respond and clarify some things for us:

  • Are you on the payroll of the Obama camp?
  • Do you care about the truth?
  • Would you recognize the truth if it bit you on the ass.
  • Do you care about this country?
  • Do you ever do any real research?

I really would like an answer. Provide one and I will publish it.

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Journalism, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, media, MSNBC, National Press Club, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

wethepeoplefoundation.org, We The People Foundation, Press Conference, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, Washington DC, Robert Schulz, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, Obama not eligible lawsuits, US Supreme Court answer, Chicago Tribune letter to Obama

Posted on December 4, 2008 | 13 comments

The We The People Foundation will hold a Press Conference on Monday, December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Robert Schulz of the We The People Foundation will discuss the letter to Obama published in the Chicago Tribune and then the plaintiffs in the major lawsuits before the US Supreme Court will speak.

The following is from a Wall Street Journal, Market Watch article dated December 4, 2008:

“On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.”

Read more here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D

The following is from the We The People Foundation site:

“Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.

Chicago is Mr. Obama’s hometown. His transition team is operating out of the Kluczynski Federal Building in downtown Chicago. He is known to be a regular reader of the Tribune, Chicago’s principal newspaper, with a daily circulation of over a half-million readers. 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8. 

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama. 

As a formal “Notice of a Constitutional Violation,” the Petition naturally includes the People’s inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

For the D.C. press conference the WTP Foundation has reserved the Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club from 1-4 pm on Monday, December 8, 2008. We are hopeful that C-SPAN may cover what could be a pivotal, historic event.”

Read more here:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm

I spoke to Robert Schulz several weeks ago and he stated that it was only after Obama began avoiding requests for proof of his eligibility and using legal wrangling to escape confrontation that he began to believe there was a serious problem with Barack Obama.

13 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, California, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Connecticut, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, Lightfoot v. Bowen, McCain Obama, media, National Press Club, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, press conference, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Larry Sinclair live Florida radio interview, Thursday, October 9, 2008, 8:30 – 11:00 PM Eastern Time, Take it to the Streets Tour, Obama, November 1999, Donald Young

Posted on October 9, 2008 | 9 comments

Larry Sinclair will give a live radio interview from Florida tonight, Thursday, October 9, 2008. Larry Sinclair is on his Take it to the Streets Tour to tell his story of a drug and sex encounter with Barack Obama in November 1999. Sinclair will also share his knowledge of Donald Young, the gay choir director at TUCC, who was murdered in December 2007 and also inform the public about the Philip J Berg lawsuit.

Check back here tonight for details of the radio interview.

* Update *

I tuned in to the show and it does not meet my minimum standards for quality. The language was repulsive and I draw the line there.

To read more from Larry Sinclair and contribute to his tour, visit:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

9 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Berg, blogtalkradio.com/larry-sinclair, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, corruption, Crime, Delaware, Democrats, DNC, down low, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FBI, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Political prisoner, Politics, Polygraphs, Radio, Senator Obama, Sex, Talk Radio, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, video, voters, YouTube

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Larry Sinclair, Nashville TN, McCain, Obama, Town Hall Meeting, Vanderbilt University, First Amendment Center, October 7, 2008

Posted on October 7, 2008 | 8 comments

Larry Sinclair is in Nashville TN for the McCain Obama Town Hall Meeting, “The 2008 Presidential Election: Where We Stand and Where We Are Headed”  forum at Vanderbilt University and to tell his story about a drug and sex encounter with Obama in November 1999. Sinclair will also share his knowledge of Donald Young, the gay TUCC choir leader, and also to inform the public about the Philip J Berg lawsuit.

Larry Sinclair’s message this morning:

“Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Good Morning Nashville Day 2

Good Morning. Today will be spent getting the truth out about Barack Obama in a respectful and dignified manner. After all, we are nothing like the Obama supporters/surrogates who engage in lies, threats, harassment and misrepresentations.

I can be contacted today at 612-466-1043 and will be in the Downtown area as well as at Belmont University.

After today’s events in Nashville, I will be leaving for Florida this evening.”

Despite attempts by Obamanots to block him, Larry Sinclair attended the  “The 2008 Presidential Election: Where We Stand and Where We Are Headed” forum at Vanderbilt University. This is taken from the Vandebilt website:
“Vanderbilt and First Amendment Center to host presidential election panel
John Seigenthaler and Harold Ford Jr. to lead discussion by national experts”
Harold Ford Jr.
Political scholars, journalists and pundits will offer their informed perspective on where the 2008 presidential election is headed during an Oct. 7 forum for students that is sponsored by Vanderbilt University and the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt.
“The 2008 Presidential Election: Where We Stand and Where We Are Headed” will be led by John Seigenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt, and Harold Ford Jr., a visiting professor of political science at Vanderbilt and former congressman. The discussion will be from 10 a.m. to noon.
“We are delighted to offer our students this rare opportunity to hear the views of leading national political experts who have been tracking Barack Obama and John McCain throughout this turbulent campaign,” said Ford, who is a political analyst on MSNBC for NBC News. The former congressman is helping teach a popular Vanderbilt course on the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
    Among the panelists scheduled to participate:
    Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico, who previously covered national politics for Time and The Washington Post.
    John Geer, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt and an expert on campaigns, public opinion and negative ads. Geer wrote In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2004.
    Howard Fineman, Newsweek’s senior Washington correspondent and columnist, senior editor and deputy Washington bureau chief. He is also an NBC News analyst.
    Anne Kornblut, writer for The Washington Post. She has been a guest on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews.
    Joe Klein, senior writer and columnist for Time and author of best-selling political novel Primary Colors.  
     Mark Halperin, senior political analyst and editor-at-large for Time. He is also a political analyst for ABC News.
    John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent and columnist, senior editor and deputy Washington bureau chief. He is also an NBC analyst.
    Chris Matthews, host of “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on MSNBC. 
    Seigenthaler, who is chairman emeritus of The Tennessean, will serve as moderator for the forum. Seating is limited, and students will be given preference.”
  
For more news about Vanderbilt’s election experts:
 www.vanderbilt.edu/news/election.
Read more from Larry Sinclair and contribute to his tour:
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

8 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, corruption, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Donald Young, down low, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Government, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com, McCain Obama, Nashville, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, Presidential debate, republicans, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Television, The Case Against Barack Obama, Town Hall, TV, United States, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Larry Sinclair, Obama rally, Grand Rapids MI, October 2, 2008, Take it to the streets, Meet, Contact Larry Sinclair

Posted on October 1, 2008 | 6 comments

Larry Sinclair is in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for two Obama rallies tomorrow, Thursday, October 2, 2008. Larry will meet downtown at 9:00 any interested parties in front of the following location:

Ottawa Cafe
200 Ottawa Ave NW # 129, Grand Rapids, MI
616-776-7750 (0.11 miles away)

Intersection of Ottawa and Lyon St NW

Anyone from the press interested in speaking with Larry Sinclair may call one of the following numbers:

612-466-1043

218-269-2274

After tomorrow, Larry will return to Minnesota and then visit Chicago next.

Larry will share his story of his drug and sex encounter with Barack Obama in November 1999 and inform people about the lawsuit initiated by Philip J Berg.

Read more from Larry Sinclair at:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

6 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, blogtalkradio.com/larry-sinclair, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, corruption, Crime, DC Warrant, Delaware, Democrats, DNC, Donald Young, down low, drugs, Election, Election 2008, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com, National Enquirer, National Press Club, Natural born citizen, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, Sex, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, video, voters, YouTube

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Larry Sinclair, Grand Rapids MI, October 2, 2008, Obama rally, Calder Plaza, 300 Ottawa Ave. NW, Downtown Grand Rapids, Sinclair take it to the streets tour

Posted on October 1, 2008 | 2 comments

Larry Sinclair is traveling to Grand Rapids MI for the first leg of his Take it to the Streets Tour. Sinclair will arrive in Grand Rapids tonight and will attend Obama rallies on Thursday, October 2, 2008.

Larry Sinclair will also host his blog talk radio show tonight from Grand Rapids MI. The show will air at 7:00 Central. To listen, visit Sinclair’s site and click on the radio show link on the right:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

Here are some announcements from Larry Sinclair:

“Tuesday, September 30, 2008
JOIN ME IN GRAND RAPIDS, MI THURSDAY
Please join me on Thursday October 2, 2008 in Grand Rapids, Michigan for the Obama rally. Bring signs and lets ask Obama about “Obama/Sinclair x 2″

……. Sen. Barack Obama will be back in Michigan for rallies in Grand Rapids and East Lansing.

The events, which will focus on the Oct. 6 voter registration deadline and Obama’s plan for the economy, will begin at 9:30 a.m. Thursday at Calder Plaza, 300 Ottawa Ave. NW, in downtown Grand Rapids. A second rally will begin at 2:30 p.m. Thursday at Adams Field on West Circle Drive on Michigan State University’s campus.

The rally is free and open to the public and tickets are not required.”

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

FLYERS FOR GRAND RAPIDS

UPDATED 10-1-08 @ 12:18 pm CDT
And we’re off. See you in Grand Rapids!!!

I will be distributing the following in Grand Rapids, MI at the Obama rally Thursday, October 2, 2008. If you cannot join me in Grand Rapids, feel free to print these and distribute in your area.

2 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Blog Talk Radio, blogtalkradio.com/larry-sinclair, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, corruption, Crime, Democrats, DNC, Donald Young, down low, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com, National Enquirer, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, Sex, Smear campaigns, Talk Radio, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, video, voters, YouTube

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama files motion to dismiss, DNC motion to dismiss, September 24, 2008

Posted on September 24, 2008 | 10 comments

 Here are the court documents filed on behalf of Obama and the DNC:

              

 

 

  DMEAST #10118497 v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS

:

BARACK OBAMA, et al., :

:

Defendants :

DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S

AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants Democratic National

Committee and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for an order

dismissing the Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction

over the claim asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying this Motion is a Brief in Support of

Motion to Dismiss and a proposed Order.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.

John P. Lavelle, Jr.

Attorney I.D. PA 54279

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &

INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8603

(215) 864-9125 (Fax)

lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 1 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

2

Of Counsel:

Joseph E. Sandler

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC

300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102

Washington, D.C. 20003

Telephone: (202) 479-1111

Fax: (202) 479-1115

 

 

sandler@sandlerreiff.com

Robert F. Bauer

General Counsel, Obama for America

PERKINS COIE

607 Fourteenth Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003

Telephone: 202.628.6600

Facsimile: 202.434.1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Senator Barack Obama and the

Democratic National Committee

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 2 of 11

DMEAST #10118497 v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS

:

BARACK OBAMA, et al., :

:

Defendants :

:

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama submit

this Brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s allegations

regarding Senator Obama are patently false, but even taking them as true for purposes of

this Motion, plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed immediately. This Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of

a candidate for President of the United States. Plaintiff fails to state a claim in any event

because there is no federal cause of action asserted in the Complaint.

I. Allegations of the Complaint

Plaintiff Berg alleges that he is a “Democratic American,” Cmplt. ¶6, and that he

is a “Democratic American Citizen.”

 

 

 

Id

. ¶44. Mr. Berg then alleges that Barack Obama,

the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 3 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

2

as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges

(contrary to fact) that Senator Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

 

 

 

Id

. ¶3. Mr. Berg

seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President; an

injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring

the Democratic National Committee from nominating him.

 

 

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, the Court is to determine “whether the complaint alleges facts on its face

which, if taken as true, would be sufficient to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction.”

 

FOCUS v. Allegheny County Ct. of Common Pleas

 

 

 

, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996). The

plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing the

elements of standing.

 

 

 

Id

. And in reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court “must accept all factual allegations in

the complaint as true” but “is not, however, required to accept legal conclusions either

alleged or inferred . . . .”

 

 

 

Washam v. Stesis

, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50520 9 (E.D. Pa.

 

2008),

 

 

 

citing Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993);

see also Bell Atlantic

 

Corp. v. Twombly

 

 

 

, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 1968, 1974 (2007) (plaintiff

must state a plausible claim for relief). Thus, although Mr. Berg’s factual allegations

about Senator Obama’s citizenship are ridiculous and patently false, the Court must of

course accept them as true for purposes of this Motion.

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 4 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

3

B. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because Plaintiff Has

No Standing To Assert His Claim

“‘[T]he rules of standing, whether as aspects of the Art. III case or controversy

requirement or as reflections of prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of

the courts, are threshold determinants of the propriety of judicial intervention.’”

 

 

 

Penn.

 

Prison Society v. Cortes

 

 

 

, 508 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir. 2007), quoting Warth v. Seldin

422

U.S. 490-517-18 (1975). In order to establish the “‘irreducible constitutional minimum

of standing’ under Article III of the Constitution” plaintiff must show, first, an “‘injury in

fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and

particularized, . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’”

 

 

 

Goode

 

v. City of Philadelphia

 

 

 

, 539 F.3d 311, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17153 *9-10 (3d Cir.

 

2008),

 

 

 

quoting Lujan v. Defenders of W

ildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

In this case, Mr. Berg fails to allege any concrete, specific injury in fact to

himself. He alleges that if Senator Obama is elected as President and then discovered to

be ineligible, “plaintiff as well as other Democratic Americans will suffer Irreparable

Harm including but not limited to: (1) Functional or Actual, Disenfranchisement of large

numbers of Citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been

deprived of the ability to choose a Nominee of their liking . . . .” Complt. ¶6. It is wellestablished,

however, that a voter’s loss of the ability to vote for a candidate “of their

liking” does not confer standing because the actual injury is not to the voter but to the

candidate. “[A] voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm is abstract

and widely shared or is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.”

 

 

 

Crist v.

 

Comm’n on Presidential Debates

 

 

 

, 262 F.3d 193, 194 (2d Cir. 2001)(per curiam); see

, to

 

the same effect,

 

 

 

Becker v. Federal Election Comm’n

, 230 F.3d 381, 389-90 (1st Cir.

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 5 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

4

2000)(supporters of a candidate lacked standing to challenge exclusion of that candidate

from Presidential debates);

 

 

 

Gottlieb v. Federal Election Comm’n

, 143 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir.

1998)(supporter of a candidate had no standing to challenge dismissal of agency action

against a competing candidate).

For that reason, a voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a

candidate for President of the United States. In

 

 

 

Jones v. Bush

, 122 F. Supp.2d 713 (N.D.

 

Tex.),

 

 

 

aff’d w/o opinion

, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000), voters sued to challenge the

qualifications of then-Gov. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to be elected President

and Vice-President of the U.S., respectively, on the grounds that they were both

“inhabitants” of Texas in violation of the requirement of the Twelfth Amendment that the

President and Vice President shall not be “inhabitants” of the same state. The Court

dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

The Court found that plaintiffs’ assertion that a violation of the Twelfth

Amendment “will harm them by infringing their right to cast a meaningful vote . . . fails

to satisfy the Article III requirement of a ‘distinct and palpable injury.’ . . . This type of

injury is necessarily abstract and plaintiffs conspicuously fail to demonstrate how they, as

opposed to the general voting population, will feel its effects.” 122 F. Supp.2d at 717,

 

 

 

quoting Warth

 

 

 

, supra

, 422 U.S. at 501. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs lacked

standing based on harm to non-defendant candidates, recognizing that none of the cases

“established standing for voters to vindicate the interests of candidates for public office.”

 

 

 

Id

 

 

 

. “Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a specific and individualized injury

from the pending alleged violation of the Twelfth Amendment and are unable to show

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 6 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

5

personal injury through harm done to non-defendant candidates, the court holds that they

do not have standing under Article III to bring this suit.”

 

 

 

Id

. at 717-18.

 

More recently, in

 

 

 

Hollander v. McCain

, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H.

2008), a voter sued Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee,

alleging that, because Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, he is not a

“natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President. The

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked

standing. The Court ruled that the plaintiff “does not have standing based on the harm he

would suffer should McCain be elected President despite his alleged lack of eligibility

under Art. II, §1, cl. 4. That harm, ‘standing alone, would adversely affect only the

generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.’” 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

at *12,

 

 

 

quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War

, 418 U.S. 208, 217

(1974).

Like Mr. Berg, the plaintiff in

 

 

 

Hollander

also contended that he would be

disenfranchised if he voted for Senator McCain in the general election and Senator

McCain were subsequently removed due to lack of ineligibility. This theory, the Court

held, “does not establish [plaintiff’s] standing because it does not ‘allege personal injury

fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct,’ . . . but to the conduct of

those—whoever they might turn out to be—responsible for ultimately ousting McCain

from office. Indeed, McCain and the RNC are trying to achieve the opposite.”

 

 

 

Id

. at *18,

 

quoting Allen v. Wright

 

 

 

, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). The court concluded that: “This is not

to demean the sincerity of Hollander’s challenge to McCain’s eligibility for the

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 7 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

6

presidency; . . . What is settled, however, is that an individual voter like Hollander lacks

standing to raise that challenge in the federal courts.”

 

 

 

Id

. at *21.

 

Like the plaintiffs in

 

 

 

Jones and Hollander

, Mr. Berg manifestly lacks standing to

assert his claim regarding the eligibility of Senator Obama to serve as President.

Accordingly, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over that claim.

 

 

C. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be

Granted

In any event, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

because it fails to establish a cause of action. Mr. Berg cites the Declaratory Judgment

Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, Cmplt. ¶8, but that Act “has only a procedural effect. Although it

enlarges the range of remedies available in federal courts, it does not create subject

matter jurisdiction. Thus, a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction . . . .”

 

Mack Trucks, Inc., v. Int’l Union, UAW

 

 

 

, 856 F.2d 579, 583 (3d Cir. 1988). Mr. Berg also

claims that the case “presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under

Article II of the Constitution.” Cmplt. ¶7. There is no federal cause of action under or

created by Article II of the Constitution, however.

 

 

 

See, e.g., Catholic Charities CYO v.

 

Chertoff

 

 

 

, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62732 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

For these reasons, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 8 of 11

 

DMEAST #10118497 v3

 

 

 

7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendants Democratic National Committee and

Senator Obama’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure

to state a claim should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.

John P. Lavelle, Jr.

Attorney I.D. PA 54279

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &

INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8603

(215) 864-9125 (Fax)

lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Of Counsel:

Joseph E. Sandler

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC

300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102

Washington, D.C. 20003

Telephone: (202) 479-1111

Fax: (202) 479-1115

sandler@sandlerreiff.com

Robert F. Bauer

General Counsel, Obama for America

PERKINS COIE

607 Fourteenth Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003

Telephone: 202.628.6600

Facsimile: 202.434.1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Senator Barack Obama and the

Democratic National Committee

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 9 of 11

DMEAST #10118497 v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

 

 

 

Defendant

Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s Motion to

Dismiss

 

 

 

was served by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 09867

Plaintiff

Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.

John P. Lavelle, Jr.

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 10 of 11

DMEAST #10118497 v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS

:

BARACK OBAMA, et al., :

:

Defendants :

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this ______ day of _______________, 2008, upon consideration of

Defendant Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s

Motion to Dismiss, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.

J.

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 11 of 11
 

 

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Justice, Kenya, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters

Tagged , , , ,

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Larry Sinclair, State lawsuits, Minnesota, Sinclair to file in MN

Posted on September 22, 2008 | 10 comments

The Philip J Berg lawsuit stating that Obama is not qualified to be president has been served on Obama, the DNC and the FEC. Obama must respond by September 24, 2008. Larry Sinclair has contacted Mr. Berg and plans to file suit in Minnesota. Here is Larry Sinclair’s statement:

“Monday, September 22, 2008

SUIT TO CHALLENGE OBAMA’S RIGHT TO BE ON MINNESOTA BALLOT

It appears that a civil suit will be filed in Minnesota State Court as well to challenge Barack Obama’s constitutional right to be on the Minnesota State Ballot in November.

I urge everyone to file legal challenge to Obama’s right to be on your states ballot as well, and do so now. The Defendants will be Barack Obama, your states Democratic Party and the Secretary of State for you state.

Until Obama has proven he is constitutionally entitled to be on the ballot on a federal level, he should not be on any state ballots and the states must determine if he is eligible for the state ballots. “

Read more here:
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/
Help insure that Obama will not be president:
http://obamaimpeachment.org

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Chicago, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, doublespeak, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Joe Biden, Justice, Kenya, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com, National Press Club, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Biden, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters

Tagged , , , ,

Obama, King of lies, diversions and deception, The View, Joy Behar, Politico blog, Politico reports lies, Personal attacks Hallmark of Obama camp

Posted on September 13, 2008 | 11 comments

How does one talk about Obama without being negative?

Should we make ties to crime, corruption, anti Americanism,
anti semitism, terrorists, and constant lies positives?

Politico.com, the same blog that reported lies about Larry Sinclair
before, during and after his arrest at the National Press Club,
has the audacity to post an article questioning John McCain’s
honesty and uses “The View” as a source for the argument. Joy Behar
is quoted as saying “They’re lies,” in reference to comments made by the McCain campaign. This comes from a group of people that would
not know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

Most of the women on “The View” clearly have a left wing agenda
and if Politico is not being paid by the Obama camp, you wouldn’t
know it. Think about it, Obama, the most documented liar that
has ever run for office (this includes court testimony) is given a
free ride and John McCain, who is known for his integrity and sense
of fairness, is being attacked. No surprise. That is the hallmark
of the Obama campaign and Politico and “The View” are an integral
part of the Obama Campaign. Here are some exerpts from the Politico
article:

“Why McCain is going so negative, so often
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 9/13/08 7:10 AM EST”

“John McCain has essentially claimed he’s savaged Obama because the Illinois senator wouldn’t agree to the series of town hall meetings McCain proposed.”

“It’s hard to imagine a more unlikely perch for John McCain to be shamed for his increasingly hard-edged and truth-stretching campaign than the middle seat on “The View.”

Yet on Friday morning, there sat the Republican nominee – a politician who has built an all but saintly reputation for “straight talk” over the years – caught in a vise between Joy Behar and Barbara Walters and getting a lecture from each on honesty.

“They’re lies,” Behar said of two recent lines of attack from the McCain campaign”

“McCain’s tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical.”

“The negative and often exaggerated or misleading claims being made about Obama and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, especially those playing on Palin’s gender, are just too irresistible for the process-consumed online and cable news media that now drives the campaign conversation, Weaver said.”

Read more here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html

So, to sum this up, Obama lies, attacks, has more baggage that a 747 and if anyone questions that, they are attacking or telling lies?

Does that make sense to you?

Boycott the sponsors of “The View”. Send a message you do not approve of their tactics.

If this worries you, visit:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

11 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Community Organizer, Corporate accountability, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Fairness Doctrine, Government, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Joe Biden, John McCain, Journalism, Justice, lipstick on a pig, McCain speech, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, republicans, Senator Obama, Smear campaigns, Television, The Case Against Barack Obama, The View, TV, Uncategorized, video, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,