Looks like the Supreme Court will conference on the Obama citizenship lawsuit:
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation’s next president.
The Supreme Court’s website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court’s docket says: “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”
If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”
The rest of the article goes on to detail the fact that the FEC has waived its right to respond to the Berg complaint:
“There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg’s lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response,” the blogger speculated.
“Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents,” he added.
“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.
“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the solicitor general’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.
Stop The ACLU is asking those of us who believe there is a valid question to Obama’s place of birth to write to SCOTUS at:
The Honorable Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543
Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407
Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.
Not too hard is it? Full disclosure. But as commenter CTN has stated on this earlier thread, its not only the question of producing the original live birth certificate:
More specifically, the issue at hand is one fold — “loyalty” — as demonstrated by the founding fathers’ absolute, non-negotiable insistence that only a “natural born citizen” could hold the executive office. They placed this requirement in the Constitution to insure that no one with any conflicts of interest would sit as president, and in this case “conflict of interest” means “possible loyalty to another country.”
Obama’s website has already conceded that he is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which was under the dominion of the King when he was born, and that he allegedly allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire when he turned 21. Expiration does not remove the problem, however, because it does not eradicate his “natural,” i.e. “inherent,” loyalty. In other words, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he would hold “natural born citizenship” in two different countries, which is tantamount to saying that he has “dual loyalties” to two different dominions.
This means that, in the end, someone will have to define the founding fathers’ intent vis-à-vis the “natural born citizen” requirement. Did they require a pure pedigree? — or would they accept split loyalties in the executive office? The answer to this question strikes me as a no-brainer. My brain notwithstanding, however, the question must be answered at a constitutional level — the Supremes must define “natural born citizenship” and they must apply their definition to the Constitutional requirement. In short, Obama’s in a world of hurt, which explains why this Harvard-trained Constitutional attorney has consistently ducked the issue. Once he produces a birth certificate, he will be compelled to answer all the other questions, and there is no satisfactory answer that won’t demonstrate his dual loyalties.
Consider, for example, that less than one year ago Obama campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya. Most Americans understand that an American senator campaigning in Kenya for a Communist who pledged to institute Sharia Law was problematic. This matter becomes even more complex when you remember that the same American senator is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya — it just looks funny. And now he wants to be president.
I’m telling ya, the next four years will see a increase in popcorn sales.
this is why the SCOTUS should have reviewed it and dismissed it
not just dismiss without comment
this will never end
i am an attorney- YOu are an idiot. supreme court does not listen to issues of FACT they listen to issues of LAW (if you are too stupid to understand the difference look it up)
also there are 3 more cases beofre them on the same issue of citizenship and eligibility that have their issues of law following up thru the courts differently. the supreme court has to follow correct proceedure and protocol as to which one has the merits of issues of LAW
so your fraud and messiah is hardly out of the woods –and his lies will be told.
it just all his to be by the letter of the LAW
why dont you educate yourself a bit-and read omething other than the moronic dailykos?
also, the suprmemc ourt never has to do a thing at this moment. obama is NOTHING until he is comfrimed by the electoral college and electors confrim HIM and then from there it goes to another stage. or are you so stupid that you think a popular vote is all anyone needs in the united states. For the record-BERG (his case is still pending) is a lifelong democrat
U.S. Supreme Court Update Regarding The December 01, 2008 Deadline
Thursday, 04 December 2008 01:46 Webmaster Main – News We understand everyone is eager to learn what occurred on December 1, 2008, at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a rumor claiming Mr. Obama was Court Ordered by Justice Souter to turn over his birth certificate by December 1, 2008. This is NOT true.
When a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is filed the Defendants automatically are given thirty (30) days to respond. They are not required to respond. The end of thirty (30) Days in the Berg v. Obama case was December 1, 2008. Keep in mind, the Defendants could have mailed in a response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Court allows approximately a week for mail. If this is the case, the envelopes must be postmarked December 1, 2008.
In the afternoon, December 1, 2008, Lisa, Mr. Berg’s Assistant contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke with the Clerk. The Clerk informed Lisa Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari would be distributed to all nine (9) Justices and a conference should be set within ten (10) days. As I’m sure you are aware, during the conference the Justices will discuss Mr. Berg’s Petition for the Writ of Certiorari and decide whether or not to grant or deny the Petition. It only takes four (4) out of nine (9) Justices to agree to grant Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Justices can also make other Orders during the Conference.
Mr. Berg’s Office also learned the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission.
Additional documents will be filed within the next couple of days. All Legal briefs will be posted on our website, so please continue checking back for updates.
while the denofrio case was denied today, dec 8th…the following case is still pending along with the Berg case as well as 2 others. berg is a lifelong democrat.
why dont you people read and educate yourself as to supreme court prceedure…the difference between issues of law and issues of fact. stop being robots and obamatrons.
this man obama has gone 48 years without one ounce of a paper trail about himself-every record sealed. something about him is way off..and you are all too stupid to even analyze the facts. sad sad sad.
well there is still a long road froma popular vote in american to confrimation by the electoral college…and being sworn in…under oath.
the crime for false swearing is a high crime and misdeameanor. obama will not become the 44th…
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
My application , Denofrio case,was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.
Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.
After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.
My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Dec 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Dec. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.
On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.
I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.
I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. -His case argues the same exact theory – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth – as I did.
All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing on this issue. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorprates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on mine quite a bit in Cort’s as we had more time to prepare it.
Berg case is still before the Supreme Court-as well as two others. These cases have different issues of law regarding Obama and his citizenship.
I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3. But Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.
I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s Docket and until they do so there can be no closure.
Does anyone know the status of the Alan Keyes lawsuit asking that Obama produce the birth records (as Keyes was also a presidential candidate it would seem he should easily have legal standing). http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/WRIT-OF-MANDATE.pdf
and does anyone know of any other challenges (possibly a WE THE PEOPLE type) being levied?
Watching these various (high-level governmen treason?) scenarios play out reminds me of Bible warnings of the last days in that “everything that can be shaken will be shaken” and it makes me grateful that my hope is not in man, but in God and my salvation through Christ Jesus.
something to think about: http://home.midwest.net/~etrnlife/2006NovDec.html
The Cort Wrotnowski V Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court, has been distributed for
conference on December 12, 2008. Leo Donofrio, whose application for
stay was denied today, Monday, December 8, 2008, believes that the
Cort Wrotnowski case has a better chance than his case had.
Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Cort Wrotnowski 1057 North Street (202) 862-8554
Greenwich, CT 06831
Party name: Cort Wrotnowski
Attorneys for Respondent:
Richard Blumenthal Attorney General (860) 808-5316
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn’t ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.
The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.
“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal,” the action challenges.
I just spoke with an intern at Congressman Ron Paul (also former presidential candidate). He said Ron Paul will not file against the eligibility of Barack Obama.
The young fellow then directed me to this article as proof.
Any comments attorneys? Have any of you requested to interview with this fellow or other reporters?
How embarassing it must be for these posters to see what they have written