It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fed Judge Throws Out Berg v. Obama Lawsuit? Or did he?

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I just want to thank all the smart people out there who are investigating, resesarching, and bringing IMPORTANT issues to America's attention while the mainstream talks about Palin's wardrobe and Biden's inabilty to count (though he did prove he could spell)

I love this site. keep it up



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Yes, today, the laws state that a child is a US citizen even if born overseas, as long as one parent is a US citizen.

Were the rules the same in 1961? Do you know?

Regardless, The US Constitution make it clear that to be eligible for President you must be a NATURAL-BORN Citizen.

The singular question we are facing is exactly what defines a "Natural-Born Citizen"

Since the founding fathers apparently never envisioned the question arising, they also never clearly defined "Natural-Born Citizen"

Looks like we may end up with a clear definition before this is all through though



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I read the court documents. I went to the Pennsylvania court page for the "eastern district" and read the whole thing. Another thing is that this same judge ruled against Obama's motion to dismiss when Obama's attorneys claimed Berg had no standing, only a few weeks before he ruled that Berg had no standing. Something's amiss there for sure.


It's already been proven in this thread that the judge didn't dismiss anything other than the whole case. The document that was talking about the dismissal of Obama's motion to dismiss was filed by Berg for the judge to sign, but he didn't sign it so it wasn't dismissed.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
here is the information you need to know the see that this law suit has no bearing....

www.uscis.gov... 19c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

support chuck baldwin



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
incase that link didn't work....here is what it says

2. Through birth abroad to TWO United States citizens
In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

Both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born; and
At least one of your parents lived in the United States at some point in their life.
Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proff of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file a Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship. You may download the form from the Immigration Forms section of this website.

3. Through birth abroad to ONE United States citizen
In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born;
Your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before you were born; and
At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after your citizen parent's 14th birthday.*
Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file a Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship. You may download the form from the Immigration Forms section of this website.

* If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the United States were after your citizen parent's 14th birthday.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


As I understand the law at the time . . .

Given a father of another country

and a 'USA' mother under 18 or 18 and under . . . I forget . . .

The child is NOT a

"natural born" USA citizen.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Yes, today, the laws state that a child is a US citizen even if born overseas, as long as one parent is a US citizen.

Were the rules the same in 1961? Do you know?


Well there's this


According to Gotcher, "The Fourteenth Amendment commands that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

"This was clarified by the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, which provided that 'All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.'"

"Senator Obama was born in the State of Hawaii two years after it became a state on Aug.21, 1959 As such, he acquired United States citizenship automatically at birth. While it is not necessary to go into all of the other legal errors contained in the posting (and there are many), the simple fact is that, with rare exceptions (children of diplomats), everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States at birth."


And goes on:


But what about the age of Obama's mother? Remember jus soli--citizenship through place of birth? (c'mon--there IS going to be a quiz). In that case--which happens to be Obama's case--the age of the parents has nothing to do with anything. Under jus soli even the children of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens at birth--just ask the pregnant women from Mexico near the end of their third trimester who try to sneak across the border in hopes their child will be born in a San Diego hospital and leave with a U.S. birth certificate clutched in his or her tiny hand.

Except for the children of diplomats, every child born in the U.S. is a natural-born U.S. citizen, period. The parents could be citizens themselves, could be from France, could be Coneheads. Nothing else matters. Only if the child is born OUTSIDE the United States to one citizen-parent does the issue of the parents' age, citizenship, or whatever, come into play.


Ron Gotcher is apart of this website



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
As I understand it . . . those docs are proposed docs--probably by Berg.

They are UNSIGNED and therefore meaningless, essentially.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I don't like McChurian either.

However, Sarah is a very authentic person and cause for hope.

Besides, McCain is a LOT better--NOT AS MUCH in a rush to a global tyrannical government

as Obama clearly and proudly, arrogantly is.

And a vote for anyone but McCain

IS a vote FOR Marxist, globalist, Muslim Sharia law Odinga aiding Obama.

That, imho, would be evil and contributing toward horrific tyranny in the streets of the USA--Obama's wife essentially said so--they PLAN on a civil conscript corps to put down those who disagree with their tyrannical plans--Marxism/Globalism . . . She said so fairly plainly

Throw in his Mentor's plan to exterminate 25 million noncompliant capitalists . . . it's old news just not well known.
.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Well, that is a blog. Not US Law, but taking it at face value...

It is beginning with the assumption that it IS a FACT that Obama was born in Hawaii.

What if Obama was NOT born in Hawaii and only had his birth registered there after the fact?

Then the whole premise of the argument shifts and there is no support in that blog.

That seems to be the crux of the issue, was Obama physically born in Hawaii or was he born overseas and his birth only registered in Hawaii after his mother returned with him.

In Either case a Certificate of Live Birth will be issued, but only in one of those cases will there be a Vault Copy with a Hawaiian hospital's name and delivering doctor's signature on it.

And the painful truth is that until a Vault Copy is produced, we just don't know for certain what the circumstances of Obama's birth are.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by davion
 


Well, that is a blog. Not US Law, but taking it at face value...

It is beginning with the assumption that it IS a FACT that Obama was born in Hawaii.

What if Obama was NOT born in Hawaii and only had his birth registered there after the fact?

Then the whole premise of the argument shifts and there is no support in that blog.

That seems to be the crux of the issue, was Obama physically born in Hawaii or was he born overseas and his birth only registered in Hawaii after his mother returned with him.

In Either case a Certificate of Live Birth will be issued, but only in one of those cases will there be a Vault Copy with a Hawaiian hospital's name and delivering doctor's signature on it.

And the painful truth is that until a Vault Copy is produced, we just don't know for certain what the circumstances of Obama's birth are.


Well I haven't seen any proof from you or anyone else that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Obama gave pictures of his birth certificate to his website and FactCheck and other than a bunch of BLOGGERS saying it was a forgery I haven't seen anything that links him to not being born there.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 



Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Yes true.


Sorry, you are wrong. You are speaking of succession to the Presidency, not the Vice Presidency.

Section 2 of the 25th Amendment addresses that issue very clearly.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by habu71
 


Of possible interest:

Judge Surrick “Received” the Decision He Issued
Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog ^ | October 25, 2008

Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:18:39 PM by RatsDawg

Judge Surrick “Received” the Decision He Issued

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom. From Judge Surrick's ruling

From Judge Surrick

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.

Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.

From:

www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Yes there are pictures of a Certificate of Live Birth onthe internet. But there are NO pics or reports of ANYONE seeing a vault copy (Long Copy) of Obama's Birth Certificate.

Unfortunately, Unless Obama produces one, the question will remain in the minds of many Americans.

That could cause serious problems, I'm not saying it will, but it does have the potential for severely dividing this country in a way that has NEVER been done before.

And the part that confuses me is this:

Obama has to KNOW just how not producing a vault or long copy of his birth certificate has the potential for serious repercussions within the US populace.

Why would a person who cares enough about this country to chose to run for President during a time when some of the most serious crises we have seen are in full swing, not care that his lack of transparency, his unwillingness to simply produce for examination a vault copy of his birth certificate, could cause another crisis from within?

Someone who cared about this country remaining united would just produce the piece of paper and put the issue to rest.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I can't believe the amount of conspiracy nonsense that's been spouted on this thread. Deny ignorance guys. Here is the proof Obama was born in the USA :

Born in the U.S.A.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by memememe
I can't believe the amount of conspiracy nonsense that's been spouted on this thread. Deny ignorance guys. Here is the proof Obama was born in the USA :

Born in the U.S.A.


That doesn't count because FactCheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation and it isn't his vault copy, even though that copy would hold up in court it isn't enough!

/sarcasm

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Have you seen this video? off topic and not on the court case but he's really accurate about a ton of stuff related to the election and Obama.

Don't know who the black musician is but hes young and very wise for his age:

uk.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
This case is similar to the one brought against McCain for the exact same reason (although McCain ultimately provided proof of his citizenship). In that case (which was also thrown out), the judge indicated that any voter is not harmed by an ineligible candidate being on the ballot. They aren't being harmed (or disenfranchised) because voters still have the ability to vote for any of the other eligible candidates on the ballot.

However, the judge did say that a CANDIDATE on the ballot (or their political party) can file the same lawsuit and it will "have standing" (be valid). This is because the candidate filing the lawsuit will be (potentially) harmed by having votes taken away from them by the ineligible candidate.

In that sense, McCain, Nader, Barr, etc,. could file the lawsuit. Same goes for the state or national party (e.g. RNC)...which they could file to get the ineligible candidate off of the ballot before the election.

I also think that a case like this would still be valid even after the election. If BO wins and he's found ineligible, then his votes are irrelevant and the next eligible candidate with the most votes (McCain) could be given the presidency.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


I have the PDF right infront of me and even though I can't read a damn thing on any of it I don't see anything they are describing.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join