posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Tinkabit
President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania
attorney Philip J. Berg's petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for
It'd be great if people knew what the hell they were talking about...
I know this is a conspiracy forum, I love a hearing about a good conspiracy myself, but c'mon, at least inform yourself.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking
the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal
questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.
Neither Obama nor the DNC have let slip anything, much less a petition for writ of certiorari, as those are filed with the Supreme Court by the
. It is the Supreme Court that has to respond, not Obama or the DNC.
Attorney Philip J. Berg
Really? Have you even read
Berg's arguments? Let's look at some of them
On page 7 of the PDF, for example, one of his arguments is as follows:
26. In or about 1967, when Obama was approximately six (6) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia
and moved to Indonesia with Obama. At this time, if Obama was Registered as a “natural born” citizen, which he did not qualify to be registered
as, he would have lost his U.S. Citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and took up residency in Indonesia. The first requirement is
that naturalization must be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurs, for example, when a person acquires a foreign
nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b).
Berg claims that Obama lost his US citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro. And he even cites which Section of the Nationality Act he is
basing this argument on.
Let's look at Section 317(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 then (PDF
- it's on page 7-8):
From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have
lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with
such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after
the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the
same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922
Apparently Mr. Berg doesn't even know how to read. The law he cites to help prove his argument actually disproves him as it applies to people who
married prior to September 22, 1922
, so it doesn't apply to Obama's mother.
Additionally, looking at Section 401
(page 1-2) we find this:
A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of
such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the
child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States
The Nationality Act of 1940 explicitly says that minors cannot lose
their nationality because of their parent's naturalization!
Are you kidding me? And this guy is allowed to practice? No wonder the Courts have been rejecting this sort of lawsuits...