A Quick Note on the Phil Berg Case

too bad you didn’t use that same judgment when it came to the “whitey tape”.

OK, Larry!

Some are getting their shorts in a knot…

Trouble in paradise? Oh noes!!

It’s all good, Larry. I myself am hoping for more foreign-policy analysis, which is where you’re at your best.

Wow, somebody filed a law suit! Sweetness… Only problem is that if the result is that he’s ineligible after the convention, wouldn’t Biden automatically become the nominee? I mean, Biden is way better than Obama, but obviously I want Hillary!!

Newsweek has an article about the Obama COLB, which most NQers have seen by now.

The “facts” Newsweek is relying on by “Factcheck.org” may need some fact checking of their own.

Fackcheck claims the photos of the COLB were taken when Obama returned from Hawaii. Others have asked why the COLB was made available only after Obama’s Hawaii trip. (did he need to cover some tracks first?)

But a bigger question is, if the Factchecker photos were taken after Obama’s Hawaii vacation in August, why is the date stamp in the jpg file 3-12-2008?

You can verify this for yourself by copying the jpg files from the Newsweek online article, and opening the file properties in MS Picture Manager or a similar program. I did.

(You will also see the photo was taken with a Canon A570 digital camera.)

The dates that Factcheck claims in the Newsweek article don’t JIVE.

That’s a FACT Jack.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obamas-citzensh.html

Plot to Kill Obama: Shoot From High Vantage PointWritten Aug 26, ’08 12:55 AM
for everyone

DENVER (CBS4/AP) ― CBS4 has learned at least four people are under arrest in connection with a possible plot to kill Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges.

CBS4 Investigator Brian Maass reported one of the suspects told authorities they were “going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a … rifle … sighted at 750 yards.”

Law enforcement sources tell Maass that one of the suspects “was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative.”

The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.

Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, wigs, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and 44 grams of methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.

Aurora police alerted federal officials because of heightened security surrounding the Democratic convention, Dudley said.

“Clearly we found there are federal implications — otherwise we would not have notified them,” Det. Marcus Dudley with Aurora police said. “The weapons clearly would cause great concern.”

Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell’s. But that man, identified as Shawn Robert Adolph, 33, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say Adolph broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he had a handcuff ring and was wearing a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.

A third man — an associate of Gartrell and Adolph, Nathan Johnson, 32, was also arrested. He told authorities that the two men “planned to kill Barack Obama at his acceptance speech.”

Johnson, along with his girlfriend, Natasha Gromek, are also under arrest on drug charges.

The Secret Service, FBI, ATF and the joint terrorism task force are all investigating the alleged plot.

The U.S. Attorneys Office has scheduled a news conference for Tuesday afternoon. The U.S. Attorney in Denver said it does not believe there is a credible threat to Obama or the convention.

“It’s premature to say that it was a valid threat or that these folks have the ability to carry it out,” said a U.S. government official familiar with the investigation. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

U.S. Attorney Troy Eid said the case was under investigation.

“We’re absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado,” Eid said in a prepared statement.

http://www.s278.photobucket.com/albums/kk82/Uppity2008/WORDPRESS/?action=view&current=Dont_Blame_Me_I_Voted_for_Hillary.jpg

its beautiful image —is someone wants to save it or copy it…..

It is disconcerting that World Net Daily denounced the Berg Lawsuit and alleged that the bloggers who professed to conduct forensics on Obama’s Cert. of Live Birth perpetrated a fraud. I’m assuming they meant atlas shrugs, texas darling, Israeli Insider et al…

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Well I read the entire filing and I notice that there was no documentation for any of the items listed in the filing. Even in a preliminary filing, I believe there should be something in the way of an exhibit to document the complaint. My first impression when I read it was that it was likely to be thrown out.

I guess this is off-subject, but why was Obama in Kansas last night and not at the convention? I thought Michelle’s speech was boring but not offensive. Kids were charming. I don’t understand his opposition to the Born-Alive Act. “Where’s your heart, dude?” I want to ask him. I assume he has seen photographs of aborted fetuses/babies (just google)… where’s his heart? When Obama said knowing when life begins is above his pay grade… when Pelosi said “we just don’t know” when life begins… if they admit they don’t know, better to err on the safe side if you ask me. Because what if it is life? What if they are on the side of taking human life? To put it differently, what if a woman’s right to choose involves taking innocent human life? Which it could, seeing as how they both admit they “don’t know…” There is an intellectual dishonesty/disconnect there, IMO.

Remember Pres Clinton’s interview:

“I never was mad at Sen. Obama,” the former president said. “I think everybody’s got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. And I’d be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition.”

Ta DA —-well – comments??

Well it passed 1st muster. The Federal Marshal served the order of Discovery. Toobin can laugh all he wants but the documents will finally come to light.

Parts of the Berg Lawsuit can be easily verified immediately. Obama seems to have perjured himself by answering “no” to the question asking if he had ever used any other name(s). This was on his Illinois State Bar application. He has previously used, among other names, Barry Soetoro (as evidenced by his registration form from his school in Indonesia.)

Other claims may also be promptly ascertained; for example, does Obama possess or has he ever used an Indonesian or Kenyan passport? The FBI or CIA could answer this question yesterday. And, if Obama does have a foreign passport, at what age did he acquire the same? After 18 years old, he may have implicitly or explicitly forfeited his U.S. Citizenship, if, and only if, he ever had it. If he was born in Kenya and then brought to Hawaii to be registered (which I know happens quite often), he is not a natural born citizen; and if he was born in Hawaii (having a Kenyan father and expat White mother) he may not be a natural born citizen.

Mr. Phil Berg claims the G.O.P. has info (certificate of birth) to the effect that Obama was born and registered in Keyna.

All of this is very serious business and are some serious, but possibly very true, and apparently provable allegations. Let’s hope Mr. Berg and the Courts will act expeditiously. The American public deserves a prompt answer to the lawsuit.

A line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) constitutionally limited the government’s capacity to terminate citizenship to those cases in which an individual engaged in conduct with an intention of abandoning their citizenship. In the wake of administrative practice changes adopted by the U.S. Department of State during the mid 1990s, it is now virtually impossible to lose one’s citizenship without expressly renouncing it before a U.S. consular officer.

In any event, Berg has no standing to seek termination of OBAMA’s citizenship. A certified true copy of OBAMA’s COLB constitutes prima facie evidence of his being born in the United States and US citizenship, a fact that Berg has no standing to dispute.

E-mail to attorney Berg:

Have you attempted to obtain your own certified true copy of Obama’s certificate of live birth?

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

A line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) constitutionally limited the government’s capacity to terminate citizenship to those cases in which an individual engaged in conduct with an intention of abandoning their citizenship. In the wake of administrative practice changes adopted by the U.S. Department of State during the mid 1990s, it is now virtually impossible to lose one’s citizenship without expressly renouncing it before a U.S. consular officer.

Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court ruled that intent to give up U.S. citizenship had to be proven by itself and could not simply be inferred from a person’s having performed an action designated by Congress as expatriating. The determination of whether a U.S. citizen did indeed give consent to loss of citizenship, however, could be made upon a preponderance of evidence, rather than under the more stringent standard of “clear and convincing evidence”. Changes of this nature were made to the citizenship law by Congress in 1986 (Public Law 99-653). However, U.S. State Department policy since 1990 has been to assume in almost all situations that an American who performs a potentially expatriating act did not in fact intend to give up U.S. citizenship, unless the person explicitly indicates such an intention to U.S. officials.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=252

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who: 1. is naturalized in a foreign country;
2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
3. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
4. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,
and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.
When, as the result of an individual’s inquiry or an individual’s application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person’s intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
I just don’t see anything here. Care to comment on this analysis?

Re: Comment by edge | 2008-08-28 11:29:27

You seem determined to undermine the allegations by disregarding some of thier most important points. For just one of many examples, you keep leaning on the COLB from Hawaii as being unquestionable proof of citizenship. Your argument disregards the allegations that there are possible as many as three birth certificates out there for Barack Hussein Obama: (1) in Kenya, (2) in Canada, and (3) in Hawaii.

One of the stories Berg is relying upon states Anne Dunham, aka Anne Dunham Obama, traveled to Kenya while pregnant with this child with the intention of returning home to Hawaaii to give birth. Allegedly the airline denied her the opportunity to board the flight out of Kenya because of a policy regarding the risk of birth while in flight, so she was supposed to have given birth in Kenya at a maternity hospital. So, there is allegedly a birth certificate for the birth in Kenya.

A second birth certificate in Canada is supposed to have become necessary somehow when Anne attempted to bring the baby home to the United States. Having been born with British citizenship in Kenya, she is supposed to have acquired and used the Canadian birth record for the documents needed to pass the child through U.S. Customs, possibly through Vancouver, BC on the way to her parents’ home in Seattle, Washington.

The third birth certificate in Hawaii is allegedly an additional record the mother obtained upon her return to Hawaii with the baby. How it could have been obtained if the child was actually born in Kenya is the central question. Was it pursuant to a little known but legal policy at the time regarding overseas birth of a Hawaian citizen in 1961, false report of the birth, or some other little known exception to the rules?

If one or more other birth records exist indeed for this one actual birth, there would then be a need to explain and reconcile the conflicting birth records and the present certification of birth in Hawaii. If the alleged other birth records do not exist, then there is no such conflict to reconcile with respect to the COLB. What the voters need and/or want to know is whether or not the COLB proffered as proof by the Obama campaign accurately reflects the original birth certificate or records produced at a hospital in Hawaii, or is it some kind of substitute record like a delayed birth certificate in which the actual facts of the birth occuring not in Hawaii may be contrary to an incorrect COLB assumption or misreported birth in Hawaii?

Even if Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Dunham, aka, Barry Soetoro, aka et al was a natural born citizen in Hawaii in 1961, the fact does not necessarily dismiss questions about subsequent expatriation or questions about divided loyalties as a consequence of dual citizenship or multi-citizenship. Regardless of whether or not the questions can be resolved with respect to this candidate, they most certainly deserve to be resolved as precedents for handling any other such questions and conflicts for future elections. The Founding Fathers put the requirement for natural born citizenship and requirements for loyalty into the U.S. Constitution for a reason or reasons which should be respected and honored.

Whether or not expatriation occurred when the laws were more permissive of expatriation, voters have a right to know about a Presidential candidate’s past and current sworn and de facto loyalties. If a candidate ever used a foreign passport, the voters need to know about it and not allow such information to be concealed by a candidate before an election.

>>>One of the stories Berg is relying upon states Anne Dunham, aka Anne Dunham Obama, traveled to Kenya while pregnant with this child with the intention of returning home to Hawaaii to give birth. Allegedly the airline denied her the opportunity to board the flight out of Kenya because of a policy regarding the risk of birth while in flight, so she was supposed to have given birth in Kenya at a maternity hospital. So, there is allegedly a birth certificate for the birth in Kenya.

****

Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled in the U. of Hawaii and did not return to Kenya with Ann. He had prominent celebrity sponsors. When he left the U. of Hawaii, he went to Boston to Harvard for grad. school and left Ann behind. They were divorced in 1963. Obama Sr. left for Kenya after he completed his studies in 1965.

>>>The third birth certificate in Hawaii is allegedly an additional record the mother obtained upon her return to Hawaii with the baby. How it could have been obtained if the child was actually born in Kenya is the central question. Was it pursuant to a little known but legal policy at the time regarding overseas birth of a Hawaian citizen in 1961, false report of the birth, or some other little known exception to the rules?

*******

The child wasn’t born overseas.

For purpose of amusing you, a hospital would have had to have falsified reporting to Hawaii’s DOH vital statistics department. However, the provable falsehoods in your conspiracies should convince one how pathetic this makes Berg look. Additionally, I am sure you have seen the published birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper. Of course, someone enlisted the help of the newspaper in an elaborate attempt to corroborate Obama’s natural birth in order to pave the way for this supposed fraud 47 years later. wake up.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/

>>>>If one or more other birth records exist indeed for this one actual birth, there would then be a need to explain and reconcile the conflicting birth records and the present certification of birth in Hawaii. If the alleged other birth records do not exist, then there is no such conflict to reconcile with respect to the COLB. What the voters need and/or want to know is whether or not the COLB proffered as proof by the Obama campaign accurately reflects the original birth certificate or records produced at a hospital in Hawaii, or is it some kind of substitute record like a delayed birth certificate in which the actual facts of the birth occuring not in Hawaii may be contrary to an incorrect COLB assumption or misreported birth in Hawaii?

The voters should be interested in why opposition research teams would go to such elaborate efforts to smear Obama when the verification of Obama’s birth could easily be obtained by interviewing the people who were there.

>>>>Whether or not expatriation occurred when the laws were more permissive of expatriation, voters have a right to know about a Presidential candidate’s past and current sworn and de facto loyalties. If a candidate ever used a foreign passport, the voters need to know about it and not allow such information to be concealed by a candidate before an election.

Obama has been candid about his travels and hasn’t concealed anything. You have been duped by an unethical lawyer who abused the process by filing a lawsuit with the improper intent to smear Obama during this election cycle.

He commits further unethical acts by violating the Professional Code of Conduct’s rules on trial publicity, fraud, competence, due diligence, honesty and integrity just to name those on the top of my head.

Why has Barack Obama not released his college records? Why has he not provided proof of the hospital where he was born? Why have Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother and other relatives claimed to have been present when he was born? Most importantly why has the DNC joined Barack Obama in stone walling the production of documents that would prove he was a United States citizen? Those asking these questions will only get louder. History has shown that this type of cover-up will backfire big time.