On the Supreme Court docket for Berg vs. Obama (08-570), there is a notation that on December 1, AZ attorney Lawrence Joyce filed a request to submit an amicus brief (friend of the court) on behalf of Bill Anderson. I spoke to Mr. Joyce who said he filed this petition on behalf of Mr. Anderson because he believes there is merit to the Berg case and he believes the legal burden of proof of Obama’s citizenship should be on Obama and not Berg. Berg has granted permision for the brief to be submitted.
The request begins:
Motion For Leave To File A Brief Amicus Curiae
The Court’s amicus, Bill Anderson, requests leave of this Court to file a brief amicus curiae in this case. Consent to file it has been obtained from the petitioner, whom this brief supports; the respondents have not granted consent.
The amicus is a citizen of the State of Arizona and an elector of that state for elector for President of
the United States.
The brief is here.
In contrast today, Ronald Kessler, writing for the conservative Newsmax.com disputes this case and relates a conversation he had with Berg at a dinner meeting. Kessler finds several reasons to discount the suit and believes conservatives should leave the issue and move on to more substantial issues.
Michelle Malkin joined in a few days ago with a clever column on the birth certificate kerfluffe.
I don’t think it would be wise to simply let this go. This issue has potential consequences whether now or at a later date. Presidents have to be ” natural born ” for a good reason. Barack Obama Jr’s questionable background is a prime example.
The ” natural born ” clause appears as a measure to ensure the Office of the Presidency is void of foreign influence and to secure the American way. Who here given Barack Obama’s past can ensure that without question.
If the issue is of such little importance why has he and the DNC gone to such lengths to ensure the issue is not investigated?.
What concerns me is that you have a major political Party in the United States that knowingly presented a Presidential candidate to the American people that was not just Constitutionally unqualified but unqualified in ability. The man has done absolutely nothing in his political career that warrants nor substantiates his candidacy.
How many people would decide on a heart surgeon with such nonchalance. Isn’t that exactly what has gotten us into this current mess were in.
Hawaii Revised Statutes
HRS 0338-0020 0005.htm
(a) the department of health shall establish
a Hawaii certificate of birth
for a person born in a foreign country
and child by adoptive parent or parents.
Hawaii Revised Statutes
HRS 0578-0014.htm
(b) if a new birth certificate…
is issued, the original birth certificate shall be destroyed.
Hawaii Revised Statutes
HRS 0338-0041.htm
(b) any certificate of Hawaiin birth
issued heretofore under or by virture of
any evidence
overcome by competent evidence
of nonidentification
4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258.
Certificate not controlling.
I hope that one of the people filing petitions to the Supreme
Court of the United States
will amend their petition immediately to ask the Court
this question:
Shall the Supreme Court of the United States
use its authority to strike down and immediately repeal
Hawaii birth certificate laws because they act to
deprive voters of their Constitutional right to vote for
a natural born citizen by seriously and willfully and
intentionally conspiring to conceal material facts
and defraud voters?
If it is necessary to add a name to a petition in order
to qualify to amend it,
then add mine,
Cris Ericson, registerd Vermont voter
http://crisericson.com
To All,
Have any reporters asked Obama where he was born? If so, when? What is the name of the reporter? What did Obama say? Did he confirm his birth being in the US or did he mention the COLB on his website or did he not answer the question? If not, why not? And if no one asked him in a press conference, why not? If you have an answer can you provide proof?
There is humor value in all of this. Donofrio, whose case is thrown out of court, and as any law student would know, has no reasonable theory on standing, is lauded as helping Wrotnowski with his brief. Obviously, Donofrio will be a big help. His track record on the identical issue is perfect – dismissed and denied in every court he has been to.
Then, there is this novel new issue that Chester A. Arthur, born in Vermont, was ineligible to be president and he appointed Gray (nevermind confirmed by the Senate) to the court and Gray wrote the opinion (nevermind that the majority of the court agreed) in an important precedent contrary to Donofrio et al. bogus legal theory and therefore the case should be overturned. Many of us who went to law
school don’t recognize the legal doctrine at issue here. This is the “130 retroactive ineligibility makes all acts by all appointed by the supposed ineligible person void.” I would guess the number of cases cited for that proposition equals precisely zero.
There might be better luck connecting Pres. Arthur and Ayers and Rev. Wright.
Maybe Malcolm X was Pres. Arthur’s father.
For all those thinking and hoping that if just enough nearly identical cases are filed that sooner or later the Supreme Court will just have to rule Obama ineligible, I have a suggestion – buy lottery tickets, because your chances of winning millions of dollars is far greater than the chance of the SC ruling the way you imagine.
Also, if you get in trouble with the law, feel free to hire Mr. Berg or Mr. Donofrio to defend you. They really have a firm grasp of legal principles and you’d be in safe hands with them.
Well, much like Leo Donofrio, it seems that the putative author of the amicus brief, Lawrence Joyce, has a double career. From Star Enterpirses Publicity, a booking agency for radio and television guests speaking on such topics as “Democrats’ New Push for EQUAL TIME Doctrine May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts!” and “Did America FAKE the Moon Landings?” and Phyllis Schlafly (“ALAN KEYES vs. OBAMA /Schlafly calls for debates!”):
Barry — I have to agree. It’s nonsensical and embarassingly unprofessional. If I submitted pleadings that awful, I would get a Mailboxes Etc postal box address too!!!!
Oh man I read this brief written by an idiot. It uses posts in a forum hawaiitopia as evidence. Internet kooks are directly assaulting the Supreme Court now.
Ted —
Dream on. Edwin Vieira is a right-wing nutcase who believes that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and who quoted Joseph Stalin while arguing that Justice Anthony Kennedy should be impeached:
Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, “upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.”
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘no man, no problem,’ ” Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don’t recognize it, is “Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.”
And regarding the Wrotnowski case being conferenced, the reporter who covers SCOTUS for the Chicago Tribune pointed out that if the justices believe that an application for an emergency stay raises an important point, they ask the other side to respond. SCOTUS has not asked for any response from the State of Connecticut.
Obama inaugurated 1/20/09? No way. No how. Read this: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm
Ted –
The problem which Wrotnowski has is that his entire case is based upon the theory that the Secretary of State in the State of Connecticut had a duty to require Obama to provide to the State of Connecticut “proof” that he is a natural born citizen. However, as the Connecticut court pointed out, Connecticut law makes no such requirement of the Secretary of State.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR9.pdf
It is extremely unlikely that SCOTUS will overturn the Connecticut court’s ruling on Connecticut state law. Furthermore, the Connecticut court ruled that Constitutional claims cannot be adjudicated under the statutes upon which Wrotnowski is relying.
“Team Obama” is not even a defendant in the Connecticut case. And, as we saw in the Donofrio case, the fact that Wrotnowski’s application has been distributed for conference means little — it will end up in the same trashbin as Donofrio’s application.
The problem with Donofrio is he relies on a Swiss author and a Kentucky Circuit Court Judge’s opinion that wasn’t even germaine to the case. Wrotnowski doesn’t have a high hurdle to improve that shit. I’ll read his if he gets it to briefing somewhere.
I wonder if the briefs will stop before his presidency is over??? – LOL!
The Supreme Court filing (application, brief etc.) in the Connecticut Wrotnowski case is soooooo much better than that in the New Jersey Donofrio case (apparently hurredly written before the Nov 4 election) that I don’t think Team Obama should get too comfortable with the Court’s denial of the first case since the second case IS distributed for Dec 12 conference. How the heck can anyone effectively counter this (great work Leo):
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=fb6dc015edba6d8ec689b56a06b79d0b
I’ll say this for Michelle – this is the first article of hers I’ve ever read that has come close to being balanced – I really enjoyed it! 🙂
Having read attorney’s Joyce’s amicus curiae brief, I doubt that any of the respondents are going to be concerned about it. I have noted that attorney Joyce was admitted to the bar in Arizona just seven years ago, he has no certified legal specialty, and his office address (1517 N. Wilmot Road in Tucson) is actually a UPS store where he gets his mail. Not exactly a legal heavyweight.
As a conseravtive, I too think it is time to move on. I can not imagine the SCOTUS entertaining the other lawsuits. I expect those petitions will also be denied. If the SCOTUS creates a firewall that would prevent a Constitutional crisis after BHO takes office, then let’s get behind the man and move on.
I think that the Founding Fathers would not mind post-election lawsuits. Court is supposed to be a place where the truth comes out and the rule of law prevails — two things that tend to get lost in the shuffle of political speeches and election-time activity. If anything illegal was done during the campaign, it should be heard in a calm forum.
I agree with Kessler. This just makes us look as petty as the Liberals at saying Bush was selected not elected. We do not want to start Obama Derangement Synderome that the Left had with Bush. Yes we need to go after policies.but not stupid things like this. This will only make Conservatives look foolish in my mind. The Supreme Court will probably not even look at it and then the fools will say that Obama is not legitimate and look crazy just like the Liberals did with Bush.
Get over it. Obama won, maybe not exactly fair and square with ACORN and all the fraud that comes with them, but the elections are over. Why is it that after every election there is a million court cases. this is not what our Founding Fathers would want and it makes us look like idiots.