Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by respondent Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.

——————————————————————————–

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Party name: Philip J. Berg
Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

Lawrence J. Joyce Lawrence J. Joyce LLC (520) 584-0236
1517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215
Tucson, AZ 85712
barmemberlj@earthlink.net
Party name: Bill Anderson

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/is_barack_obama_a_us_citizen_y.html

…with reference to the good explanation in this article..

Now pay strict attention, because I’m only going to explain this once: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the United States and therefore eligible to become president? The answer is yes, according to Ron Gotcher, a noted California immigration lawyer and The Swamp’s resident expert on presidential eligibility.

But it is not necessary to look to the statutes that deal with citizenship through jus sanguinis, since Senator Obama’s citizenship derives from jus soli – citizenship through place of birth.

…Legitimate via jus soli.

Also the wed or unwed status of the mother has no bearing on US citizenship.

As for the Berg claims on possibly a ship birth – rubbish – other parts of the 14th Amendment cover these issues even in the unlikely event that this occurred. The timescales of the birth heavily negate this possibility.

Note that Obama cannot hold dual nationality with Indonesia due to his age at the time, his Hawaii birth, only being in Indonesia 4 years not 5 years, and jus sanguinis being the – ONLY – governing principle for INDONESIAN adoption and nationality at the time.

As Obama is not eligible for jus sanguinis in INDONESIAN law then or now – so he CANNOT BE a Dual US/Indon citizen – previously or NOW.

Actually if an Indonesian was challenge Obama in an Indonesian court they might actually get somewhere from a Juris standpoint. As his being registered as Barry Soetoro at the age of 4 or so is not uncommon and would be tolerated in the lax indonesian society up until a point where he got in someone’s way politically.

The more relevant aspect of concern in Indonesian eyes would be the muslim definition of Haraam – forbidden – as relates to the status of Obama’s mother and this would be from their standpoint more of a concern rather than the pros and cons of a young childs birth. So it just shows how different countries evaluate circumstances differently….

In summary if you look at the situation from factual birth information – born in Hawaii at the said date, and Obama never eligible for dual citizenship – due to Indonesia’s restrictions per juris sanguine – then this issue is a dead issue.

Berg’s frivolous attempts at intervention in a legitimate candidates attempts to be elected president of the USA could ultimately prove very costly to him, as there are torts as state and federal level that could be used against him in this regard.

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.

Has Barack Obama EVER EXPRESSED HIS INTENT to expatriate to State Department officials? If not, then he is a citizen of the United States.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

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.

*******

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/

******

LOL..

Ann’s parents didn’t live in Seattle.

Madelyn and Stanley moved to Hawaii, where he found furniture store opportunity. She started working at the Bank of Hawaii in 1960 and was promoted to be one of the first female bank vice presidents in 1970.

****

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.

I don’t disregard the many conspiracies out there. From a Berg lawsuit standpoint, they are first and foremost not relevant because a private citizen cannot bring suit to challenge the validity of Obama’s proven authentic COLB. If you wish to persue your fantasies of his having been born somewhere other than Hawaii, take it up with the Stae of Hawaii AND the State Department. Berg has NO STANDING to make those arguments. capiche?

Obama’s father was at the University of Hawaii when he met his mother, they dated eloped and had Barack. They were prominent in their class and have had many close friends from that period come forward and talk of those times. You can try and get around that all day long, but the eye witnesses are credible and available.

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.

Abuse of process is the intentional tort of initiating and the carrying out of legal proceedings for improper purposes.

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?