Obama's Birth Certificate

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

A person according to the constitution must be a naturalized citizen.

If you are talking about eligibility for the presidency, you are utterly wrong. According to the Constitution, a president must be a NATIVE-BORN citizen. A naturalized citizen was originally a citizen of a different country and then gained US citizenship.

Of course, if Obama's birth status is to be questioned, so must McCain's, since he was born in Canal Zone.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

If you are talking about eligibility for the presidency, you are utterly wrong. According to the Constitution, a president must be a NATIVE-BORN citizen. A naturalized citizen was originally a citizen of a different country and then gained US citizenship.

Of course, if Obama's birth status is to be questioned, so must McCain's, since he was born in Canal Zone.

You are right. I wrote it wrong from having to repeat myself so much.

Requirements to Become President of the United States

McCains qualifications to be president has already been ruled on. Aall the papers were presented and the issue resolved. Obama refuses to do so in his case. Why?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

So Berg says it's a forgery and the Registrar says it is not. I guess it's who you trust. Frankly I will trust a Court registrar over some jumped up lawyer everyday.

Why not examine Berg's credentials before calling him names. He provides them at the beginning of this video as well as the facts of the case.

200810132208 | Does Barack Obama Meet the Qualifications to be President of the USA? | / | Editorial

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

McCains qualifications to be president has already been ruled on.

By the Senate. The House needs to join that resolution before it is conclusively ruled upon. Now why is it that you believe the Congress has jurisdiction to rule on McCain's case, but you don't believe that in Obama's?

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Aall the papers were presented and the issue resolved.

NO obstetrician's records from Panama have been presented in McCain's case. Only in Obama's case is this demanded.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Obama refuses to do so in his case. Why?

Obama DOES NOT POSSESS the original hospital records. The State of Hawaii, Department of Health, possesses them. When Obama made a request to Hawaii, of course they gave him (and he published on the Internet, and makes the physical document available to those who want to check) the same document that is given to any other citizen who requests, the same document that is conclusive on the matter in the case of anyone else.
To repeat what Netti-Netti pointed out to you:
"The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department."
Obama CANNOT "conceal" these records. Obama CANNOT "produce" these records. It is not up to him. How many times do we have to point this out to you?

Now, if you really want to see the hospital records, you have to show cause to Hawaii. Berg is not even asking that Hawaii be ordered to produce these records; he isn't even filing his case in a court that would have that power. Obviously, then, Berg has no sincere interest in seeing the records; he has no purpose except harrassment.

I am also disturbed that you are repeating the lies that "According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims" (this is NOT from Obama's grandmother or half-siblings; the only source is an anonymous rumor-monger) and "the judge ruled in Berg's favor" (the falsehood that you started this thread with). When you first repeated these wrong statements, it could be interpreted that you are simply indifferent to truth and failed to check them out; but now, it is obvious that your lies are intentional.

[Nick_A]

Bob

By the Senate. The House needs to join that resolution before it is conclusively ruled upon. Now why is it that you believe the Congress has jurisdiction to rule on McCain's case, but you don't believe that in Obama's?

The point is that in the McCain case all the documents are there to make an intelligent. Obama is stalling so how can anyone judge anything?

Obama DOES NOT POSSESS the original hospital records. The State of Hawaii, Department of Health, possesses them. When Obama made a request to Hawaii, of course they gave him (and he published on the Internet, and makes the physical document available to those who want to check) the same document that is given to any other citizen who requests, the same document that is conclusive on the matter in the case of anyone else.

Obama CANNOT "conceal" these records. Obama CANNOT "produce" these records. It is not up to him. How many times do we have to point this out to you?

All Obama has to do is authorize release by writing them and telling them that he is running for president and want to eliminate any doubt that he was born in Hawaii.

Hawaii will not release them by themselves but will when Obama authorizes it. Do you think if it was as easy as you say he would be hiring three lawyers to stonewall?

Curious how you call all these people that disagree with you rumor mongers but yet openly support all attempts to hide the documents anyone would be proud of in order to resolve the issue. The Obama choir has surely captured you. Keep practicing that glazed over blank stare.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The point is that in the McCain case all the documents are there

Nobody has seen any original hospital records from Panama. What we have for McCain is the same information we have about Obama. Only in Obama's case do you demand more.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

All Obama has to do is authorize release by writing them

That's not true. When someone requests his birth certificate in Hawaii, he is not given the option to demand release of everything in the files: all that you get is the standard birth certificate.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Curious how you call all these people that disagree with you rumor mongers

"Rumor monger" is a POLITE term for the liar who posted the original story and claimed, FALSELY, that Obama family members were the source.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

but yet openly support all attempts to hide the documents

Obama, I repeat, has no power either to hide or to release the documents. File a case in Hawaii, in a court with jurisdiction over the Hawaiian officials who actually do have the documents you pretend you want to see, and make a case, if you can, why they should be released.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bob x

[/size][/font]
Nobody has seen any original hospital records from Panama. What we have for McCain is the same information we have about Obama. Only in Obama's case do you demand more.
[/size]
That's not true. When someone requests his birth certificate in Hawaii, he is not given the option to demand release of everything in the files: all that you get is the standard birth certificate.

"Rumor monger" is a POLITE term for the liar who posted the original story and claimed, FALSELY, that Obama family members were the source.

Obama, I repeat, has no power either to hide or to release the documents. File a case in Hawaii, in a court with jurisdiction over the Hawaiian officials who actually do have the documents you pretend you want to see, and make a case, if you can, why they should be released.

You really should have told Obama this and he wouldn't have had to hire three lawysers to seek delay

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the motion of defendants
DNC and Senator Barack Obama for a protective order staying discovery pending a
decision on their motion to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Dated: October 6, 2008 John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,
LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)

lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Of counsel:
Joseph E. Sandler
General Counsel, Democratic National Committee
SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C.
300 M Street, S.E. #1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants
Senator Barack Obama and

Democratic National Committee

Do you know how much these guys charge? They only do it because they don't know what you've said and Obama cannot have these documents released. Why dismiss when there is nothing to dismiss?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You really should have told Obama this and he wouldn't have had to hire three lawysers to seek delay

You don't really think Obama wants to spend even one second of his time replying to this nonsense, do you? Why should he?

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Do you know how much these guys charge?

Berg has not given them much work. A motion to stay, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss? That's perfectly routine.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Why dismiss when there is nothing to dismiss?

That is WHY you move to dismiss, precisely because there is nothing there.

[Tao_Equus]

Nick, found some footage of one of your ancestors.....but dont bleed on me for it!
YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bob x

You don't really think Obama wants to spend even one second of his time replying to this nonsense, do you? Why should he?

Berg has not given them much work. A motion to stay, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss? That's perfectly routine.

That is WHY you move to dismiss, precisely because there is nothing there.

I was wondering why it takes three lawyers to perform a simple task according to Bob. Then I remembered why it must be so. Of course this doesn't answer why people around here have been so Obamsized as blindly accept his refusal to have the documents released which of course could be done. It is the obvious result of too much choir singing.

But why it takes three lawyers is of course answered easily as done after someone has contemplated the old question of how many lawyers it takes to change a lightbulb. We see that the question is open ended and assistance is optional depending on the resistance of the party of the second part.

Why not just ask Hawaii to release the documents? It's too easy and holds the constitution in too high a regard. We have to have dismissal of something denied to begin with. If the BC is genuine, what is there to dismiss? Of course this is not a song sung by the choir. Once you see how many lawyers it takes to change a lightbulb, you will see why it takes three lawyers to dismiss what can be produced in service to the constitution unless of course, something is fishy about all this denial.

How Many Lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

How many Lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Such number as may be deemed to perform the stated task in a timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the follow- ing agreement:

Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "The Lawyer", and the party of the second part, also known as "The Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumina- tion of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entry way, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement be- tween the parties.

The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:

1.) The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, said direction being non- negotiable. Said grasping and rotation of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be undertaken by the party of the first part (Lawyer) with every possible caution by the party of the first part (Lawyer) to maintain the structural integrity of the party of the second part (Light Bulb), notwithstanding the afore- mentioned failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) to perform the aforementioned customary and agreed upon duties. The foregoing notwithstanding, however, both parties stipulate that structural failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) may be incidental to the aforementioned failure to perform and in such case the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall be held blameless for such structural failure insofar as this agreement is concerned so long as the non-negotiable directional codicil (counter-clockwise) is observed by the party of the first part (Lawyer) throughout.

2.) Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ("Receptacle"), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.

3.) Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this self- same document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, said direction also being non- negotiable.

NOTE: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by said party of the first part (Lawyer), by his heirs and assigns, or by any and all persons authorized by him to do so, the objective being to produce a level of illumination in the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned front (north) door consistent with maximization of ingress and revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as "The Firm".

.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I was wondering why it takes three lawyers to perform a simple task according to Bob.

I am sure it did not even take one lawyer. If you are completely unfamiliar with how law firms work, for a routine motion like this, a clerk puts together the boilerplate language and then the lawyer signs it.

It is against the rules of civil procedure to enforce discovery requests while a motion to dismiss is pending. Berg first needs to show he has enough of a case to withstand the dismissal motion before he can make his request. I am certain that Berg has practiced law long enough to be perfectly aware of this simple point, which is why I am certain that Berg does not actually have any serious intention of getting these records; his sole intention is harrassment, and he is not even accomplishing much on those lines.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Why not just ask Hawaii to release the documents?

Precisely. Berg is not asking Hawaii to release the documents: to do that, he would need to show cause why he is accusing the Hawaiian officials of perjuring themselves on the birth certificate; and he would need to pursue his case in a court in Hawaii, not a court in Pennsylvania which has no authority over them, or better still, he should ask a Congressional committee (since Congress, not the judiciary, has jurisdiction to decide on the eligibility of Presidential candidates) to subpoena the Hawaiians. He is not doing anything like this, so obviously he has no real interest in the documents.

And where are the hospital records for McCain, hmmm? Do we even know he was born in the Zone and not in Panama City? We haven't even seen his birth certificate! Where is your outrage about that?

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by bob x

I am sure it did not even take one lawyer. If you are completely unfamiliar with how law firms work, for a routine motion like this, a clerk puts together the boilerplate language and then the lawyer signs it.

It is against the rules of civil procedure to enforce discovery requests while a motion to dismiss is pending. Berg first needs to show he has enough of a case to withstand the dismissal motion before he can make his request. I am certain that Berg has practiced law long enough to be perfectly aware of this simple point, which is why I am certain that Berg does not actually have any serious intention of getting these records; his sole intention is harrassment, and he is not even accomplishing much on those lines.

Precisely. Berg is not asking Hawaii to release the documents: to do that, he would need to show cause why he is accusing the Hawaiian officials of perjuring themselves on the birth certificate; and he would need to pursue his case in a court in Hawaii, not a court in Pennsylvania which has no authority over them, or better still, he should ask a Congressional committee (since Congress, not the judiciary, has jurisdiction to decide on the eligibility of Presidential candidates) to subpoena the Hawaiians. He is not doing anything like this, so obviously he has no real interest in the documents.

And where are the hospital records for McCain, hmmm? Do we even know he was born in the Zone and not in Panama City? We haven't even seen his birth certificate! Where is your outrage about that?

Quoted for truth!

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bob x

I am sure it did not even take one lawyer. If you are completely unfamiliar with how law firms work, for a routine motion like this, a clerk puts together the boilerplate language and then the lawyer signs it.

It is against the rules of civil procedure to enforce discovery requests while a motion to dismiss is pending. Berg first needs to show he has enough of a case to withstand the dismissal motion before he can make his request. I am certain that Berg has practiced law long enough to be perfectly aware of this simple point, which is why I am certain that Berg does not actually have any serious intention of getting these records; his sole intention is harrassment, and he is not even accomplishing much on those lines.

Precisely. Berg is not asking Hawaii to release the documents: to do that, he would need to show cause why he is accusing the Hawaiian officials of perjuring themselves on the birth certificate; and he would need to pursue his case in a court in Hawaii, not a court in Pennsylvania which has no authority over them, or better still, he should ask a Congressional committee (since Congress, not the judiciary, has jurisdiction to decide on the eligibility of Presidential candidates) to subpoena the Hawaiians. He is not doing anything like this, so obviously he has no real interest in the documents.

And where are the hospital records for McCain, hmmm? Do we even know he was born in the Zone and not in Panama City? We haven't even seen his birth certificate! Where is your outrage about that?

Berg is not asking Hawaii for documents. he doesn't have the right to do so. Instead he asks the following:

Phil J. Berg files amended complaint in Berg v. Obama

60. Plaintiff has asked for a simple resolution. Plaintiff has asked that Obama supply a genuine certified copy of his original long version “vault” Birth Certificate, A Certification of Citizenship and a certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance. If in fact Obama can prove his “natural born” citizenship status, which he cannot, then he has not been prejudiced in anyway, but instead Plaintiff has been protected and his civil rights secured. However, if Obama is unable to supply said documentation, then he needs to withdraw his candidacy, again which will eliminate Plaintiff’s deprivations and instill Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected safeguards and rights.

It is really quite simple. No amount of choir singing can get around the obvious. If Obama does not produce them voluntarily or give his permission for Hawaii to release the documents and instead fights it in court, what is he hiding? People not in nthe choir are asking this obvious question while choir singers keep singing there way araound it. Thak the powers that be, I'm not in the choir.

[Tao_Equus]

You have posted 16 pages of utter crap on a nonsense Republican diversion to get the Republican choir humming and hawing in moral indignation. Yet you have not posted a single word on the massive electoral fraud currently being carried out by your republifascist masters. I suppose MILLIONS of legitimate voters across your country being cheated of their right to vote does not concern you because they are Afro-Caribbean, Hispanic or just plain old working class. You want to know what fraudulent is then look at the thread started by Arthra :
Voter suppression issue:

[bob x]

Actually, Tao, what is peculiar about this case is that Berg is a Democrat. I know where he is coming from, and his motivations are not the same as NickA's.

Those of us who hung out on the kind of political boards where the Democrat primaries were argued encountered a certain subset of Hilary supporters, not a large group but VERY LOUD, who just got more and more bent out of shape as the writing on the wall got clearer. They would make delusional arguments about how Hilary was bound to win, and accuse anyone who pointed out fallacies in their arguments of being horrible meanies. By the end they were threatening to all vote Republican, and to stage violent or at least noisy demonstrations at the Convention, if Hilary didn't win, or didn't at least get the VP slot (I, personally, think Obama would be better off if he could have found some way to team with Hilary, but I understand why that couldn't happen, and the rabid Hilarites were a big part of the problem).

Berg's aim is to force the Democrats to replace Obama on the ballot with Hilary. This is totally unrealistic, but that doesn't get through to him.