We already know that Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah AKA Barry Soetoro is not constitutionally eligible to be president, no matter where he was born. I also think it is very critical the fraud at all levels is exposed and dealt with. This includes the Obama COLB that was first posted online by the Daily KOS and then by Obama's FightTheSmears website, which both still have the forged COLB posted. Many in the Media claim, including the obots, that the short-form COLB is the only document obtainable by the Hawaii Department of Health, but, as proven here, that is not true and is a complete lie.
New research was conducted on the recently released Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth which then led the researcher to re-examine the KOS/FTS Obama COLB which clearly and undoubtedly put the nail in the coffin on the complete and utter forgery. The new examination reveals that the COLB does not have an ID number under the blacked out section of the COLB. This fact alone should have the Hawaii DOH investigating why they have a blank template of one of their state issued COLB's floating around the internet and why a candidate for the presidency of the United States used and is still using a Hawaiian COLB with no ID number printed on it. It is clear as day that this document was not officially issued by the State of Hawaii.
Note that the KOS/FTS Obama COLB is not the same Obama COLB that Factcheck published on their website, after questions were raised about the authenticity of the KOS/FTS COLB, as the Factcheck.org COLB clearly has an identification number on it.
Below is the new partial analysis conducted on the KOS/FTS Obama COLB. To completely understand the analysis, and to conduct it yourself, please visit the researchers website here; http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/nail-in-the-colb-coffin
Here is the 'original' Barack Hussein Obama [COLB] displayed on the DailyKOS
Here is the same with the ‘redacted’ layer exposed.
The security ‘Ratan Pattern’ is clearly detected but no lettering or numbers are. Here is a composite with both areas together.
Proof that the original COLB that was posted had no number or lettering indicating that it was never issued by the State of Hawaii Department of Health. It was based on the following ‘Blank Template’ and nothing more.
Final question, How could Obama release a document that has no certification number from Hawaii?
UPDATE:
Here is another surpise that the Obot’s can attempt to refute. Note that the three distinct marking on each the Obama COLB and the Hawaiian Blank match up. The odds are astronomical of two seperate images, having the same markings.
Via Dr. Ronald J. Polland; The Journolist Conspiracy to elect Barack Obama - whom they knew was not born here. A forum of 400 prominent, leftwing liberals in the mainstream media and academia whose criminal intent was to manipulate the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election and do everything thing possible to ensure that Barack Obama would become America's 1st black President.
One of their members was Ben Smith of Politico. He invented the bogus "Birther" label. Fellow member David Weigel, now with Salon, made a "Movement" out of and then everyone on the Journolist launched into the most vicious and despicable "Blitzkreig on "the Birthers" on or around July 27, 2009 - the date that Hawaii Health Director lied about Obama's birthplace and birth date.
These wackjob liberal elitists looked away while "election fraud, voter fraud, wire fraud, identity fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud" was being committed all across the country by the Democrats in 2008...
HOWEVER,
Even though the Journolist is gone, they are still collaborating and conspiring to manipulate the outcome of the 2010 elections.
They collaborated with the Obama Campaign on what and what not to say or print and PERSONALLY ATTACK anyone who did not agree with his policies or did not believe his promises, by calling them RACISTS and MORONS.
They squelched all stories about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Resko, George Soros, Rashid Khalili, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, and the $200 million in foreign campaign contributions.
They became exactly like the state-run media found in every other third-world dictatorships. - Source, Video Below...
Attorney Taitz and attorney Kreep file their Reply Briefs in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The first snippet is from the Taitz Brief followed by a snippet from the Kreep Brief. Full Briefs embedded below. Appellants include Capt. Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Capt. Robin D. Biron, Col. John D. Blair, Mr. David L. Bosley, Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, Capt. Harry G. Butler, Rep. Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Thomas S. Davidson, Rep. Cynthia Davis, Matthew Michael Edwards, Lt. Jason Freese, Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, Officer Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D. Andrew Johnson, Israel D. Jones, Timothy Jones, Alan Keyes, Ph. D., David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M. Lott, Major David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Robert Lee Perry, Col. Harry Riley, Sgt. Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Capt. David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Rep. Eric Swafford, Capt. Neil B. Turner, Richard E. Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope and Mark Wriggle
TAITZ BRIEF: BIAS AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY THE DISTRICT COURT
As the Appellants are limited to only 15 pages in the reply brief, the appellants will limit the reply to the most egregious issues of bias, abuse of judicial discretion, improper influence, and possibly criminal cover up exhibited in this case, particularly in regards to the fact that an attorney for the defendant’s law firm, acted as a law clerk for the presiding judge. This case was dealing with fraud, perpetrated by Barack Obama prior to becoming U.S. President. Obama’s personal attorney and White House Counsel Robert Bauer is a senior partner for Perkins Coie. Attorney-law clerk, drafting the opinion to dismiss the case, was also an employee of Perkins Coie.
A. Bias and abuse of judicial discretion in Judge Carter’s refusal to rule on the motion for default judgment against Obama
Most important issue in this case, is that Judge Carter’s actions in relation to the motion for default were improper, represented bias, abuse of judicial discretion and represented fraud committed by Judge Carter in relation to the Plaintiffs, to Plaintiff’s counsel Dr. Orly Taitz and to the country as a whole.
In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion the defendants made a fraudulent statement: “ It is submitted that the court’s decision to deny entry of default judgment against the President was in all respects proper.”
The U.S. attorneys know that Judge Carter (hereinafter Carter) NEVER denied entry of a default judgment . He simply refused to issue an order. As stated before, he first hearing was for a DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Therefore Judge Carter had an obligation to follow Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:
(A) conduct an accounting;
(B) determine the amount of damages;
(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or
(D) investigate any other matter.
So all he was empowered to do at that hearing was either grant the default (which he didn’t ), deny the default ( which he didn’t ) , or conduct hearings or make referrals when to make a judgment, it needs to establish the truth of any allegation by evidence or investigate any other matter. Thus, he had no right to set a trial date. As a result, the government had NO RIGHT to file a motion to dismiss.. This should have been an investigative hearing on evidence, by him, in order to determine if default judgment should be granted. By the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he was not empowered to do anything else. He NEVER made a ruling on default judgment.
As the transcript of the July 13, 2009 hearing shows, the Plaintiff’s attorney Dr. Orly Taitz repeatedly requested for Judge Carter to rule on her motion for default judgment, simply rule one way or another, grant it or deny it. He never did.
Clearly Obama was served with the process, as he sent an Assistant U.S. attorney to represent him. Instead of ruling one way or another, to grant or deny the notion for default, judge Carter improperly applied pressure and duress on plaintiff’s attorney and demanded that she serve Obama the way “government wants“. He never stated, that she did not serve him correctly, as he knew that she served him on Inauguration Day, before he did anything as a president. She served him with a law suit, dealing with fraud, that he committed before getting into office, in order to satisfy his personal ego and in order to get into office. Judge Carter knew, that Taitz served Obama properly and that Obama was in default in that he never furnished an answer, so Judge Carter simply decided to act with bias and defraud the Plaintiff’s Counsel and the Plaintiffs by promising that if Taitz serves Obama yet again, the way government wants, he would hear the case on its Merits. During the course of the hearing Carter repeatedly stated that this court has jurisdiction and the case would be heard on its merits, he stated that this is an important case for the country and the military, that it should not be decided on technicality, but rather decided on the merits, if he (Obama) wasn’t eligible, he shouldn’t be there (in the White House). (Appendix to Appellant’s Brief, Clerk’s record, 07.13.09 transcript)
Taitz had no other option but to rely on the Honesty and Honor of a Federal Judge. Instead, Judge Carter defrauded her and her clients. He did precisely what he promised not to do. he dismissed the case on a technicality, claiming he had no jurisdiction and to add insult to injury, for good measure, he added slanderous statements about the plaintiffs and Taitz in order to demoralize the Plaintiffs and to destroy good name of their attorney, to assassinate her character. -SNIP- Full Taitz Brief embedded below.
KREEP BRIEF: INTRODUCTION
This Appeal of the order granting Respondent Barack Obama’s Motion to Dismiss is limited to the issues affecting Appellant’s Dr. Wiley Drake (hereinafter referred to as “DRAKE”) and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “ROBINSON”). . It is our understanding that Dr. Taitz will be addressing the issues affecting her clients in her Reply Brief.
This action was brought by, among others, Plaintiffs Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “APPELLANTS”). Dr. Wiley Drake was the Vice Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election on the California ballot. Markham Robinson was the Chairman of the American Independent Party and was a pledged Presidential Elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election for the California ballot. Dr. Taitz is representing Plaintiff Dr. Alan Keyes (hereinafter referred to as “KEYES”), herein, who was the Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election on the California ballot.
STANDING
Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”) contends that APPELLANTS lack standing because “they cannot demonstrate a particularized injury in fact traceable to Defendants’ conduct as would be necessary to establish standing.” (Appellees’ Answering Brief, page 12). To support this contention, OBAMA cited Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which states:
“We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 504 U.S. 555, 573.
The Court in Lujan cited examples of generally available grievances about government including: a suit challenging the propriety of certain federal expenditures (Id. at 574); a suit contending that Justice Black's appointment to this Court violated the Ineligibility Clause (Id. at 574); a suit challenging the Government's failure to disclose the expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency (Id. at 575); and a suit to block an execution on the basis of ‘the public interest protections of the Eighth Amendment' (Id. at 577). The Court explained that, in these examples, the plaintiffs were alleging injuries that applied equally to the public at large. Unlike the examples in the Lujan case, KEYES and DRAKE were running for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and were on the ballot in California. APPELLANTS did not suffer a generalized injury that was no different than any suffered by the public at large, and, instead, were harmed in that one of the competitors for the office of President ran for that office without the right to do so, thus denying APPELLANTS the right to compete fairly in the election. (Hollander v. McCain (2008) 566 F.Supp.2d 63). As APPELLANTS discussed in their opening brief, the Hollander v. McCain Court noted, “courts have held that a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing in the election.” (Id. at 68). APPELLANTS have reason to believe that OBAMA was, and is, ineligible to serve in the office of President and his inclusion on the ballot in California hurt APPELLANTS’ chance at prevailing in the state, and, for that reason, APPELLANTS have standing in this matter, and the granting of the motion to dismiss should be vacated.
OBAMA further argues that, if a candidate for a particular office lacks the votes to win an election, the candidate cannot show any injury if another candidate who won the election unlawfully ran for the office (Appellees’ Answering Brief, page 12-13). This argument would seem to indicate that, if a candidate for office lacks any chance at prevailing, he or she has no interest in whether his or her opponents are following the applicable election rules. The current rules regarding Presidential elections allow for a candidate to run for the office of President of the United States even if that candidate is not on the ballot in other states. However, if such a candidate could never challenge the eligibility of a national candidate on the grounds that this candidate could never win the office, does that mean that third party candidates should never run for the office of President because they could never challenge any improper action of the national candidates? Does the law, therefore, provide opportunities for, and encourage, majority party presidential candidates to skirt or ignore election rules and since, according to APPELLANTS, third party presidential challengers would never have standing to challenge such violations of the rules on the grounds that no third party candidate could ever hope to win enough votes? -SNIP- Full Kreep Brief embedded below.
Via the Post & Email and some; - Monroe County Gestapo beat and taser retired Naval Commander - “THEY TRIED TO RIP OFF MY LEFT EAR” - by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 27, 2010) — As of 9:50 p.m. EDT, The Post & Email has just spoken with LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, who was arrested today at his home on a charge of “failure to appear” at a hearing last Friday of which he claims he was not notified. Fitzpatrick is being held in the Monroe County detention facility.
Fitzpatrick reported that there were four officers who used a taser on him “over and over and over” and that “they tried to rip off my left ear. I don’t know how much of it is left.” He states that he is unable to use his right arm and that “they came out with the intent to hurt me. They broke down the door. It was a battle. They didn’t stop.”
The Post & Email contacted the detention facility earlier and inquired as to Fitzpatrick’s state of health and was told, “He’s fine.” When we asked if he were injured, the woman dispatcher answered, “No, not that I know of.”
Fitzpatrick stated that a nurse came to the jail with an x-ray machine and took x-rays of his shoulders and ribs. He reports that the ribs on his right side are still sore and that he was beaten over the head. He also said that he has facial contusions. ...continued here; http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/27/monroe-county-gestapo-beat-and-taser-retired-naval-commander
Via the Post & Email; - FBI Investigation Open; Fitzpatrick Arrested - “YOU CAN EXPECT A VISIT FROM FBI AGENTS” - by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 27, 2010) — The Post & Email was notified this morning by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III that he was told by personnel at the Knoxville, TN FBI this morning that there is an ongoing investigation into the Monroe County court and grand jury system. He was told that he could expect a visit from an FBI agent in the near future.
10:54 a.m. EDT: The Post & Email has just received word that Walter Fitzpatrick was arrested.
12:53 p.m. EDT: We spoke with Mr. Fitzpatrick’s landlady, who said that she could confirm that Fitzpatrick had been arrested this morning after what she described as a “physical struggle.”
While she did not personally witness the incident, the landlady said she heard some “loud talking” after spotting four police cruisers across from Fitzpatrick’s home. ...continued here; http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/27/fbi-investigation-open-fitzpatrick-arrested
Via the Post & Email; - Monroe County issues Arrest Warrant for Walter Fitzpatrick - BUT WHERE ARE THE SIGNATURES? - by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 26, 2010) — A “Capias and Bond” document has been issued by the Monroe County court for the arrest of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, a retired Naval officer, but the signature of a judge is absent and the names of court officials are printed rather than signed. There is also some type of scribbling on the document in two places.
The term “capias” indicates that a person is taken into custody for any of a number of different reasons. A sample of a “Capias” form used in other Tennessee counties can be found here.
The reason for the warrant is listed as “failure to appear in criminal court.” The document is dated October 22 and was faxed to The Post & Email upon request today along with an order signed by someone other than the court clerk, Martha Cook, although the document bears her personalized stamp.
The Post & Email has contacted Mr. Bill Poovey of the AP, whose article in the Knoxville News today cited Attorney Stephen Pidgeon saying that the Monroe County grand jury was “hopelessly corrupted,” to inquire about his research and reporting of grand jury issues in Tennessee. ...continued here; http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/26/monroe-county-issues-arrest-warrant-for-walter-fitzpatrick
Via the Post & Email; - Government Tyranny is supported by Tennessee Newspaper - REPORTS AN ARREST WARRANT BUT NOT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF JUDGES, SHERIFFS AND CROOKED ATTORNEYS - by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 26, 2010) — A report from the Advocate & Democrat of October 25, 2010 states that “A man who is so bound and determined to take President Obama to court that he once made his way into a closed grand jury session failed to appear in Monroe County Criminal Court Friday morning.”
The writer is apparently referring to the April 1, 2010 citizen’s arrest attempted by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III at the Monroe County Courthouse after he discovered that the grand jury foreman, Gary Pettway, had been occupying his position for at least 20 years in violation of Tennessee state law.
The Advocate & Democrat article omitted the fact that there was no evidence of a scheduled court hearing. According to court records and Fitzpatrick, the next scheduled hearing was set for December 1, 2010.
This writer contacted the author of the Advocate & Democrat piece yesterday: ...continued here; http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/26/government-tyranny-is-supported-by-tennessee-newspaper
Via WND and Ballot Access; - Judges: Court could review eligibility after Congress - State ruling suggests intervention, if any, after 'processes have run their course' - by Bob Unruh
Three judges on the Court of Appeal in California's 3rd District appear to be saying that a judicial review of a president's eligibility is a possibility – after the Electoral College and congressional procedures run their courses.
They also suggest that state officials can remove someone from a presidential ballot for being ineligible when they want to, but they don't really have to do that.
The results are found in an opinion that upholds a state district court's dismissal[ruling embedded below] of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
The case was pursued on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson. It alleged that both the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible.
Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The state court says the plaintiffs relied on a 1968 case in which the California secretary of state refused to have activist Eldridge Cleaver's name on the ballot "because he was only 34 years old, a year short of the requisite 35 years of age needed to be a presidential candidate."
"In appellants' view, this shows the secretary of state has the duty to investigate a candidate's qualifications and remove the person from the ballot if their qualifications are found lacking. No so," the judges said.
"The fact that former Secretary of State Jordan excluded a candidate, who indisputably did not meet the eligibility requirements, does not demonstrate that the secretary of state has a clear and present ministerial duty to investigate and determine if candidates are qualified before following the statutory mandate to place their names on the general election ballot," the judges said.
The judges did not reference evidence in the case for their conclusion that the 1968 candidate "indisputably did not meet the eligibility requirements."
The case, and dozens of others, including some now working their way into the U.S. Supreme Court, contend Obama has not proven his eligibility and the available evidence shows he might not meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen."
The judges advised that the "investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check."
The court took note of the Constitution's provisions for handling a case in which a "president-elect shall have failed to qualify" but said the responsibility is left to Congress.
But the opinion also suggested a line of responsibility that would include the courts. It warned that should Congress fail to act "in the first instance" – and during the 2008 election there was no action on the part of Congress regarding the issue – "Judicial review – if any – should occur only after the electoral and congressional processes have run their course." ...continued here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=220441
Via Ballot Access; - California Court of Appeals Issues Important Ruling About Presidential Candidate Ballot Access - by Richard Winger
On October 25, the California State Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Keyes v Bowen, C062321, holding that state elections officials are not supposed to keep presidential candidates off the general election ballot because they may not meet the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. The lawsuit had been filed in 2008 by Alan Keyes, who had sued the California Secretary of State because she allegedly did not investigate whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be President. See this story.
The Court said, “An investigation of eligibility is best left to each political party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes…The Secretary of State has no such discretion for the general election ballot. With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must (“must” is in italics in the opinion) place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates…
“In any event, the truly absurd result would be to require each state’s election official to investigate and determine whether the proffered candidate met eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution, giving each the power to override a party’s selection of a presidential candidate. The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results.” ...continued here; http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/10/26/california-court-of-appeals-issues-i,mportant-ruling-about-presidential-candidate-ballot-access
I noticed that FOX News mentioned this skit numerous times today but didn't show the part about Obama's birth certificate, that I saw. It seems FOX is the only outlet out of all the major media outlets that avoid reporting Obama's ineligibility. I wonder why...
Via Joe the Electrician; Clip from SNL's opening skit 10/23/2010, mentions the citizenship controversy..
All copyrights remain with nbc universal, inc.! only posted here for archival, discussion, and criticism purposes.. please visit: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live for the full skit. Direct link; http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/barack-obama-&-harry-reid-opening/1255799 Video Source. embedded below...
Video:Bob Chapman, Publisher of the International Forecaster Weekly says Obama is an illegal alien and how can you expect the public to have any respect for him whatsoever...
Via 68Truthseeker; Bob Chapman, Publisher of the International Forecaster Weekly while discussing Cap and Trade on The Talk To Solomon Show calls Obama an illegal alien. Source.
If this doesn't make your blood boil nothing will. The Wall Street Journal reports that numerous MEDIA outlets filed suit to gain access to Senate candidate Joe Miller's law records. The Judge ruled; "Mr. Miller is a public figure by virtue of the fact that he's a candidate for the U.S. Senate," thus, "the public's need to know is more compelling than Mr. Miller’s right to privacy."
My question is; WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE MEDIA IN REGARDS TO OBAMA'S PAST RECORDS!? Sorry, I keep forgetting that the media only investigates the past of Republican candidates. I wonder what would happen if Joe Miller possessed a Social Security Number that did not belong to him!?
Let me remind you that Obama is fighting the release of ALL past records, now with the help of lawyers paid with our tax dollars. The Obama records not released include; Passport records, Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules(said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records and of course the long-form Certificate of Live Birth.
Via the American Pundit; - Judge in Joe Miller Records Case Has Serious Conflict of Interest -
Judge Winston Burbank has a serious conflict of interest in this case. Namely, he was appointed by Governor Frank Murkowksi. As in the father of Lisa Murkowski, Miller’s chief opponent. ...continued here; http://amerpundit.com/2010/10/23/judge-in-joe-miller-records-case-has-serious-conflict-of-interest
Via the Wall Street Journal; - Joe Miller Loses Privacy Ruling - By Vauhini Vara
Senate candidate Joe Miller’s onetime employer must release most records about his tenure as a part-time lawyer for a local government, an Alaska superior-court judge ruled on Saturday.
“Mr. Miller is a public figure by virtue of the fact that he’s a candidate for the U.S. Senate,” said Superior Court Judge Winston Burbank at a hearing. He continued, “The court concludes … that the public’s need to know is more compelling than Mr. Miller’s right to privacy.”
He ruled some information shouldn’t be disclosed for reasons including the privacy of the people involved and client-attorney privilege. He added that the records shouldn’t be disclosed any earlier than Tuesday at 4 p.m., to give Mr. Miller time to appeal the decision before then. “Joe is going to confer with his attorney to see if an appeal is even necessary,” said a spokesman for Mr. Miller.
The decision was a twist in a battle involving several news organizations who had together sued the Fairbanks North Star Borough... ...continued here; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/23/joe-miller-loses-privacy-ruling
Via WND and some; - D.C. rally boldly blasts Obama as 'fraud' - Eligibility attorney Berg motivates crowd to ask, 'Where's birth certificate?' -
by Drew Zahn - A rally today at the U.S. Capitol pulled no punches in declaring President Barack Obama an "imposter" and "fraud" who should resign before a constitutional crisis of his own making rips apart the nation.
The rally was called by Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney who runs the ObamaCrimes.com website and was the first to sue over allegations Obama is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the Oval Office.
"The main thrust of the rally," Berg told WND, "was to get out the continuing message that Obama is a phony, a fraud, an imposter, and [his eligibility to serve as president] is the biggest hoax committed against the U.S. in 234 years."
Berg believes there is enough evidence, both hard and circumstantial, to justify an investigation into whether or not Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution to serve as president. Berg is looking for a court with "the guts" to demand Obama provide proof of his eligibility.
Berg told WND that though the crowd, which he estimated at a couple of hundred, was smaller than anticipated, he still considered the event a success – in part, because of what he hopes it will inspire.
"The feedback we received was that the attendees are going to go back and spread the word," he said. "Groups of six or so are planning to get together at intersections with signs that read, 'Where's the birth certificate?' At rush hour, those six people can get the message out to thousands."
"I think it was successful to that degree," he continued. "It was a step in the right direction."
Berg told WND he isn't pushing for Obama's resignation out of some right-wing venom – he's a life-long Democrat – or racism or hatred, but out of dedication to preserving the U.S. Constitution and out of concern about what will happen to the country if Obama continues his presidency and is discovered ineligible years down the road.
"My goal is to have a peaceful revolution before something worse breaks out," Berg said. "The sooner the better."
He continued, "Obama is walking all over the Constitution, destroying the Constitution through holding office while ineligible, through a health-care plan that is clearly unconstitutional, and he has plans for more unconstitutional actions. I'm doing this because nothing is more important to the U.S. than its Constitution."
Berg's initial emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court when Obama first took office, like those of a number of other attorneys, were not accepted by the panel. He has one case pending, and it is being prepared for presentation to the high court now.
[update here] This Petition is regarding the sanctions ordered by federal judge Clay D. Land in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The sanctions were then upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Case now appears on the SCOTUS Docket here.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
2. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 13 (1954).
3. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?
4. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?
5. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn’t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?
6. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?
7. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?
8. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?
9. What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?
