Archive for the 'Obama birth certificate cases' Category

Obama’s aloof post 2010 election news conference

November 4, 2010

Obama came out in a blaze of aloofness and indifference to the losses by White Democrats in the 2010 election. He could barely keep himself from sneering and celebrating their defeat.

His rhetoric of being humbled was his own version of Jon Stewart mocking George Bush. Obama doesn’t care about anyone else and certainly not White politicians beaten by other White politicians. Because in the final analysis, they were just White politicians, that is how Obama registers it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/03/president-obama-s-press-conference-lets-find-those-areas-where-we-can-agree

Basically, race replacement of Whites by non-White immigration.

1.1 million green cards a year while 15 million are unemployed.

Busting the budget and long term solvency by millions of poor non-Whites.

Affirmative Action and ethno-networks to complete the takeover of institutions like the Supreme Court and federal reserve to be against traditional White America.

Not talking about our real problem, non-White immigration and race replacement of Whites.

The solution of this part of the problem is for the House to vote to decertify that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. The House can pass a resolution on its own stating that Obama has never been president because he was never a Natural Born Citizen.

This does not require impeachment or a Senate trial. It is simply a majority vote by the House. Then Obama’s presidency and his Supreme Court appointments are void.

Advertisements

House by itself can rescind Obama as natural born citizen

November 3, 2010

The House of Representatives can get discovery on Obama’s documents and hold hearings based on Vattel. Based on this they can determine, if that is the conclusion, that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. Based on that they can revoke the certification that Obama is president. They can decide Obama was never president and that his actions were void. That would include Supreme Court appointments.

This only requires a majority vote of the House of Representatives. That removes Obama. There is no Senate impeachment trial because this is not an impeachment. This is doing what they should have done originally, examine Obama’s documents and determine if he is a Natural Born Citizen.

The Democrats passed a resolution long after January 2009 stating that Obama was born in Hawaii as a fact.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5193422-503544.html

This was July 27, 2009. That shows it is legal to go into whether the president is qualified as a natural born citizen after he is sworn in as president. The Democrats did that to themselves. So its open for the Republicans now to do the same and vote that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and rescind his certification as president and declare him not the president.

If Obama sues, they can claim he lacks standing to review acts of the House.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll647.xml

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 647
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H RES 593 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 27-Jul-2009 6:56 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hr593/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:1

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;

Whereas Hawaii has contributed to the diversity of Congress in electing the first Native Hawaiian member of Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole, the first Asian-American member, Hiram Fong, the first woman of color, Patsy T. Mink, and the first Native Hawaiian to serve in the Senate, Daniel Kahikina Akaka;

Whereas Hawaii is an example to the rest of the world of unity and positive race relations;

This could be the start of a resolution to expel Hawaii from the Union. However that may be, they did drag in where Obama was born after certifying Obama as president.

Gene flow amends Constitution on natural born citizen

October 6, 2009

The Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen under the New Gene Flow Constitution.

The Constitution means what the gene flow says it means.

1. US government (USG) is genociding all whites.  This doesn’t mean a mixture, it means individual extinction of each (metaphorically) tagged (and serial numbered) gene.

2. The meaning of the Constitution is what the gene flow says it means.

3. Obama has been chosen by the gene flow to be the leader of the US because he reflects the interests of the gene flow.

4. The 1787 Constitution is racist because it did not proclaim genocide of every gene in every white person.

5. The gene flow has changed the meaning of the racist Constitution of 1787 to the new gene flow constitution based on replacement of whites.

6. Under the Gene Flow Constitution the Racist Constitution is void where it conflicts the purpose of the Gene Flow.

7. Natural Born Citizen now means a person elected to be president.

8. The gene flow has changed the meaning of the constitution to be what is suitable to it for its ends.  The old racist constitution does not apply when it conflicts.

We the People means We the Gene Flow.

The New Constitution:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Obama is natural born under the natural gene flow.

Assume the population is bounded from above.  If there is a group of immigrants whose annual inflow is bounded from below and such that a multiple of the genetic survival factor of each year’s inflow bounds that of any other annual cohort (here or flowing in) then the genetic survival factor of every cohort and thus every gene asymptotes to zero.

One can think of each gene as getting a base serial number and bequeathing that base serial number to its daughter genes and adding the date of creation.  A gene crossing the border gets a new base serial number in sequence of base serial numbers and the date of crossing.  Thus any gene’s serial number consists of its base and all the creation dates in its lineage from start date for those here already as of that date or its border crossing date.  In this case, every base serial number eventually goes extinct from immigration.

Note that in the Obama NBC case, Obama is pursuing the genocide of whites policy and so there is irreparable harm to him as president to whites.

Judge David Carter held a hearing in the ongoing birther case in which Orly Taitz represents Barnett and the people and the US Department of Justice represents Obama the Occupier.

“Barnett v. Obama: Judge Delays Decision, Voices Concerns”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2355822/posts

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7428

By the way, we and our ancestors fought for and paid for standing.  Obama is not NBC and is pursuing a policy of genocide.  This is in violation of the original 1787 Constitution.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/immigration-vanishing-survival-theorem/

Obama fails unitary loyalty test to US

July 25, 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5907183/Right-Wing-US-conspiracists-question-Obamas-birth-certificate.html

“Right Wing US conspiracists question Obama’s birth certificate
On the fringes of the American right, a growing conspiracy claims that Barack Obama is hiding a Kenyan birth certificate, making him ineligible to serve as president.

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 5:31PM BST 25 Jul 2009”

As usual, the Daily Telegraph gets it wrong when Political Correctness gets in its way.  In the hands of the MSM, bad conspiracy theory drives out good.  Despite the long coverage of Pakistan’s involvement in 9/11 issues and also Saudi Arabia and UAE, the establishment has settled on the only alternative to 19 lone hijackers is the most extreme conspiracy theory that Bush did it.  This crowds out Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia despite the many links and substantial evidence.

The overall question of Obama’s fitness for office, legal and moral, based on his record is still very much in question.  This is complex and has many issues.  TD has done a great job raising many on her blog especially in the early days.  Judah Benjamin put us and that part of the country paying attention onto the issue of dual citizenship disqualifying under Article II even if Obama was born here.

Associate Justice Story in the first commentaries on the Constitution by a US Supreme Court associate justice together with documents found by JB and others show that the Founding Fathers had a concept of unitary loyalty from birth to being president as what they had in mind.

If a person was born in the US to two US citizens, taken to Russia and told he was Russian by his teacher and his adopted father, pledged allegiance to Russia  in school every day, and was made to believe that Russia was the center of his life and his future and that his loyalty lay with Russia, then if he came back to the US at age 17 and stayed in the US thereafter, he would not be eligible to be CINC.

The Founding Fathers wanted the reality of sole loyalty to the US during formative years. The FF didn’t want a formal test empty of content.  They did not exalt form over substance. An example of what they found acceptable was John Quincy Adams being raised abroad for a few years while his father did diplomatic work for the US.

Obama’s known history does not fit the pattern of what the Founding Fathers intended, that every year of a child’s life he is told his sole loyalty is to the US of A and that his future is solely as an American.  It is certain that Obama does not fit that.

Obama was told by his teacher in the language of Indonesian schools that Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, that Indonesia was the center of his life then and as an adult and his stepfather and his mother both told him that.  Obama learned Indonesian to fit in with his future country which his mother and father told him would be the land of his future life.  That means Obama fails to have had the US as his sole center of loyalty from birth to presidency and as the sole center of his future life in citizenship and loyalty terms.  It is this substantive sole loyalty test that the FF had in mind.

Texas Darlin covers the latest CNN denial of this story.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/to-cnns-jon-klein-ask-the-hawaii-health-dept-this/

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp

When the Democratic Party or its candidates challenge a voter’s qualification in any forum, administrative or court room, they are asking for equity.  To get equity one must do equity.  Qualification for an election as voter or candidate is a single common controversy.  To get equity to strike unqualified voters, a party must itself vet its own candidates qualifications.  The Democrats failed to do that with its presidential candidate who is now president.  That is a huge failure to do equity.  Because of that the Democratic party and its candidates are disqualified to challenge the qualification of any voter or candidate to run in any election, until the Democrats remedy this.

This means release of all Obama’s records from birth to the present.  That includes Indonesian identity papers, KT identity card, Indonesian adoption records, school records, mosque records, Hawaii’s file, US passport file, entry to Pakistan records, Occidental records, Columbia and Harvard Law School record.  It includes any other relevant records from any country.

It also required a candid discussion of the issues raised above and elsewhere on the natural born citizen question under Article II.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/common-controversy-standing-to-sue-obama-birth-certificate/

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/theclog/2009/07/14/obamabirth-certificate-case-may-make-it-to-court/

Common controversy standing to sue Obama birth certificate

December 8, 2008

Argued: Any person eligible to vote in the 2008 election for president has standing to sue Obama on grounds he is not eligible as a candidate on due process and equal protection grounds as part of a common controversy.

Common Controversy:  Who is eligible to participate in the 2008 election either as candidate or voter.

Nutshell:  If the candidate can sue the voter as not qualified to vote and has standing, then as part of the same common controversy the voter has standing to sue the candidate as not eligible to participate in the election.  If one can initiate a suit against the other as ineligible, then the other can plead as defense the ineligibility of the other.  Either may initiate a defense he can plead.  Denial of symmetry in the same common controversy to voter or candidate is denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/open-thread-plus-oh-no-another-kennedy-rides-the-dynastic-chariot-into-congress/#comment-27929

Common controversy argument:  Who is qualified to vote and who to run form a common controversy.  The common controversy is who is eligible to participate in an election as a whole including voters and candidates. Candidates can sue voters on which voters are qualified already.  Therefore as part of the same common controversy, voters can sue candidates as unqualified.

Denial of the right to challenge the other side in a single common controversy of who is eligible to participate in an election is denial of due process of law, equal protection of the law, access to the legal system, and fair election laws at state and federal levels.

Asymmetric standing is everywhere and always denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law.  If C can sue V on eligibility to vote as part of an election controversy on  then V can sue C on eligibility to be a candidate as part of the same common controversy, the election.

The standing of C and V to sue the other is based on their own eligibility.  If C isn’t qualified to run, he lacks standing to sue V as ineligible to vote and V can plead that as a defense in a suit by C against V.  Therefore V does have standing to challenge C’s eligibility as a candidate as a defense.  Therefore V should have standing to initiate a court case against C challenging C’s eligibility as a candidate.

C can plead that V is not eligible to vote and so lacks standing as a defense.  Its symmetric.  If its not symmetric it denies due process of law and equal protection of the law to who is limited.  If it can be plead as a defense but not sued on only its denial of equal protection, due process and equal access whichever one is so impaired.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/berg-v-obama-dismissed-on-standing-grounds/

==Comment from ForMySons at Texas Darlin

ForMySons

Posted on SCOTUS Docket as of 5:05 pm EST

No. 08A469
Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Docketed:
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.

The saga continues

==More here

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/wrotnowski-application-referred-to-full-court-by-justice-scalia-distributed-for-conference-on-dec-12-supplemental-brief-to-be-submitted-tomorrow/

== Donofrio case was denied certiorari.

Berg v. Obama dismissed on standing grounds

October 25, 2008

Order to dismiss in Berg v. Obama, DNC, FEC.

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

Paradox of Voting (POV)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

There is injury in fact in light of the Paradox of Voting. This is the POV of Anthony Downs not Arrow.

POV is that people vote even though the chance they change the outcome times the dollar value of the outcome is less than the cost of their voting.

Note that under POV their stake in the election is greater than zero and meaningful, it can even break them. But the chance they change the outcome is so low, esp if not a 50/50 case, that when multiplied by their stake the expected value is less than the cost of transport and time to the voting place.

To avoid the POV, the government has to make people feel they have more stake in voting than their generalized interest or specific interest actually is.

Allowing a candidate who isn’t qualified undermines how voters feel so that they don’t vote. Because the POV says they shouldn’t vote anyhow on a straight dollars and cents basis, allowing unqualified candidates or giving voters no standing to challenge candidates undermines their willingness to vote in light of the expected benefit of their vote being less than the cost of transport.

Because judges swear to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution relies on elections and voting despite the POV, judges have an obligation by their oath to make voters feel they matter. That means letting them challenge a candidate’s qualifications for office. This is especially true when candidates can challenge voter’s qualifications. Allowing the latter but not the former makes it seem rigged for those in power by those in power. That undermines voting which undermines the Constitution which relies on people voting.

Section 1983 claim. Since Obama can sue Berg to challenge his voting qualifications, but Berg can’t sue Obama to challenge his candidate qualifications, this is denial of due process of law, civil rights, and equal protection.

Its the same controversey and if Obama can sue Berg in that controversey, then Berg can sue Obama in it. Standing must be the same.

==Suppose Obama sues a voter claiming they are not qualified.

The voter then makes a motion to dismiss on the grounds Obama lacks standing. The voter says the reason that Obama lacks standing is that Obama is not qualified to run for office, i.e. is not a qualified candidate.

Obama can’t be injured by the voter not being qualified if Obama himself is not qualified. The voter says Obama has to prove qualification.

By challenging a voter’s qualifications, Obama, the DNC, and local parties implicitly plead that Obama is qualified. A defendant has a right to challenge a fact plead by the plaintiff. Thus Obama, the DNC and local Democratic parties have already implicitly plead that Obama is qualified in cases and proceedings across the country.

That means Berg can challenge what Obama has plead in court. Each defendant whose voting qualifications were challenged could challenge Obama and the DNC and Democrats implicit pleading Obama is qualified in each case, but its simpler to consolidate it. If necessary, Berg could find a person whose voting qualifications were challenged by the Democrats.

==More detail on this argument

Suppose the DNC sues a voter or challenges them as not qualified and the voter makes a motion to dismiss on the grounds the DNC lacks standing because the candidate of the DNC, Obama, is not a qualified candidate. Thus the DNC can’t show it is injured in fact.

Or a local Democrat party challenges a voter and the voter seeks to dismiss on the grounds the Democrat candidate is not qualified for office, thus the Democrat party state organization is not injured in fact and thus lacks standing to sue.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf


So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).

If Obama is not qualified, then the DNC and state parties and Obama are not injured in fact by a non-qualified person being registered to vote or voting.

Moreover, the chance they change the outcome is almost zero, i.e. are the deciding vote. So the Democrats have failed to show an injury in fact,

Since the Democrats don’t know who the person will vote for, its speculative for them to claim they are damaged by the person voting when not qualified. They have failed to prove injury in fact.

Since the probability is so low they fail on (2) as well.

They fail on (3) since the person’s vote is not likely to change the election.

Thus Obama, the DNC, and state Democratic organizations only have a generalized interest in challenging a person’s qualifications to vote. They lack standing.

Since Obama is not qualified to take office, he and the Democrats also are not injured in fact, haven’t shown a causal connection and haven’t stated a grounds for relief. They just have a generalized interest in voters being qualified. Its totally speculative who a person will vote for, so the Democrats never have standing to challenge a person’s qualification to vote or their signature on a referendum or ballot initiative or to get a candidate on a ballot.

Its a violation of due process of law, stare decisis, equal protection of the law, etc. to have one rule of law for when the DNC or Obama sues or challenges a person on their qualification to vote, and another when its the other way.

The Democratic party gets to appoint judges, election officials, legislators, etc. So they have many ways to protect themselves against those they don’t want to vote who they believe are not qualified. Individuals don’t have that power. They don’t appoint judges, etc. So they need the courts to give them standing to get equal protection, to challenge the qualifications of officials for office.

The reason the qualification for president are what they are is the irreparable harm a foreigner being commander in chief can cause, the complete loss of our liberty and constitutional government. With nuclear weapons in our forces or the potential for Iran to gain them because Obama is a foreigner who doesn’t care, are exactly why its irreparable harm on a historic scale for an unqualified foreigner to become president and cinc.

==

Obama is running to be president, whose job is to protect the civil rights and Constitutional rights of each citizen. Obama has taken away Berg’s civil rights by denying him equal protection of the laws, the right to sue to challenge Obama’s qualifications when Obama and the Democrats are challenging the qualifications of voters or of those trying to register voters, as in California by state officials.

Individuals are not powerful parties. The officials in the 3 branches of government are all linked into powerful party organizations, two of them. Individuals are not. They need officials to protect the civil rights of individuals even when the powerful parties don’t want it. That is the case here.

Obama has already violated the job duties of president in this case and so has already disqualified himself. He has already violated the oath to uphold the Constitution which includes the civil and Constitutional rights of Berg and voters whose qualifications were challenged by Obama or the Democrats.

==

It is not true that only parties have an interest in qualified candidates in an election. The Founding Fathers didn’t want parties. So to say the parties have rights under the Constitution and individuals don’t is to turn the Constitution on its head. Yet parties do challenge the qualifications of voters to vote. They do many other things to, and are given money by the government as well. The two parties also control the FEC jointly.

The two parties have acted to keep 3rd parties off ballots. They have acted to exclude them from debates. They have demeaned them. They have given out the spoils of government to the two parties while denying them to 3rd party supporters or members. Party members get jobs in powerful law firms and can lobby government and get well paid, even for foreign countries.

==

The paradox of voting shows that its easy to undermine the vote and to keep people from voting. The Constitution relies on people voting since it relies on elections. So anything that reinforces the paradox of voting undermines the Constitution, which judges are supposed to uphold. Denying voters the right to challenge the qualifications of candidates when candidates and parties can challenge the qualifications of voters reinforces the negatives of the paradox of voting. Its like a see-saw. Its already ready to tip against people voting. Anything in the balance against voting risks irreparable harm to the Constitutions’ dependence on people voting despite it not being rational individually. The decision in this case of denying standing to voters to challenge the qualifications of the two major party candidates does exactly that.

== POV and Parties existence are linked.

The Founding Fathers hoped to avoid political parties. But the Paradox of Voting calls parties into existence, as happened. Parties are necessary to get people to vote despite the paradox of voting. They get people to the polls. They create excitement. They monitor who votes. Parties overcome the paradox of voting. So the POV causes parties to come into existence.

Our entire political system revolves around the POV and related interests. The public interest is no man’s interest is a recipe for the corruption of democracy, which is what has happened throughout our and human history.

Making people believe they have a stake in the truth and honest government is part of what makes it work. Judges have a role to make people believe we have a government of laws and not men. That means excluding unqualified candidates from office. That means giving the people standing to sue or challenge the candidate of a party, when the candidate or th party can sue or challenge the qualifications of a voter. The latter happens all the time. Obama challenged signatures on petitions to get his opponents on the ballot in the 1990’s when he first ran for office. Its fairness and equal protection of the laws and due process for Obama now to have his qualifications challenged by the voters.

When Obama challenged the qualifications of voters to sign the petitions in the 1990’s, he implicitly plead that he was qualified for office. But there is evidence he was not. That is in this case.

Obama turned down Judge Abner Mikva’s offer of a federal appeals court clerkship and the NY Times wrote about it at the time in 1991. His only rational reason is he feared an FBI background check. If he had taken the clerkship he could have been a professor at University of Chicago instead of a lecturer. Obama is still trying to conceal his records. McCain was open with his in 2000. The people have a right to challenge him as he challenged them in the 1990’s. Anything else is denial of due process of law, fairness, civil rights, Constitutional rights, and undermines getting people to vote despite the paradox of voting.

==

Following are comments posted at Texas Darlin. These may be repetitive.

==

on October 25, 2008 at 3:28 pm132 Old Atlantic

A candidate can sue a voter to be removed, and a voter defend the lawsuit against the candidate. Equal protection implies the voter can sue the candidate to be removed and the candidate has to defend the suit.

The probability that an individual voter will change an election that is not polling 50/50 is low. As the odds deviate from 50/50 and the number of voters, n, goes to infinity, the probability goes to zero rapidly. (It becomes the tail of a Dirac Delta Function in this case.) But this is true whether the candidate sues the voter or the voter the candidate.

However, the cost of the candidate to the voter does not go to zero. If the candidate will impose a cost on the voter of 10,000 dollars, that doesn’t go to zero as n goes to infinity and as the odds deviate from 50/50.

Thus a voter has more economic standing and specific damage to challenge or sue a candidate over credentials to hold office than a candidate or party to sue or challenge a voter over credentials to vote.

==

In this suit, its known that no entity whatsoever has gone over Obama’s records. There is a constitutional requirement that this be done.

If a nuclear power plant was being built someplace, and the builders admitted they never had the plans reviewed for safety by anyone, then an individual in the area should be able to sue.

In such lawsuits in actual practice, the defendant would say they have done the analysis and many government entities have reviewed the plans for days. Often there have been public hearings before agencies.

Then some disgruntled citizen comes before the court to stop the power plant and the court rules no standing. But that’s after the safety has been reviewed over and over.

If no hearings were ever held, and the plans for the plant had never been filed with any government agency, then that is a different situation. Its the law the plant’s safety has to be reviewed by the government.

Its wrong to carry over precedents of activists challenging nuclear power plants in court after the government reviews the safety with public hearings over many years with this case where no government review ever happened, there were no public hearings, and Obama has never turned the papers over to anyone.

Papers here means the complete files: Entire Hawaii file, the entire US passport file, all the records of Indonesian, and for Obama, his mother and his father.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/berg-lawsuit-dismissed/#comment-20467

==

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/berg-press-release-appealing-to-us-supreme-court/

on October 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm8 Old Atlantic

Judge’s ruling in case of dismissal of challenge of McCain.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

We can distinguish as follows: McCain did in fact turn over all his documents in the 2000 election for review. That distinguishes with Obama’s case, who has not.

The DNC, the states, etc. have a constitutional duty to check Obama’s full papers, full Hawaii file, full US Passport file, all Indonesian records, all Kenya records, school, etc.

We can distinguish from McCain and other cases: Only one person in the history of the world turned down a clerkship with a federal appeals court out of lawsuit and it was written up in the New York Times at the time that it was inexplicable.

But it makes sense if Obama was not a citizen and had to pass an FBI background check. Obama has asked his Harvard classmates to keep silent. Did he ask them to analyze the law for him at the time of the clerkship offer?

The New York Times in 1991 by publishing an article saying it was inexplicable and quoting the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Abner Mikva, has already shown evidence that can only be explained by some problem in Obama’s history, and citizenship is the most likely one. If Obama wants to say he was involved in some activity in Chicago he didn’t want the FBI to know or in his Pakistan trip, then he can plead that.

When the government has a duty to check and an individual has a duty to disclose, and neither does it, then the case can’t be compared to one where the government has checked a disclosure and a citizen challenges it after the government has checked it.

The main precedents these judges are pointing to, in terms of US Supreme Court decisions, are not about cases where the government never checked plans of a nuclear power plant, or a chemical plant or something like that and someone said you have to do this and the Supreme Court said no they don’t. Those US Supreme Court precedents are about cases where people sued after the government went through years of hearings on nuclear power plants or chemical plant safety or the like. Those don’t apply, because Obama never turned over and the government never examined the complete files, Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, US Passport, etc.

on October 25, 2008 at 5:01 pm16 Old Atlantic

From judge’s ruling in McCain case:

“To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his
political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an
allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that
doing so hurts the candidate’s or party’s own chances of
prevailing in the election. See, e.g., Tex. Dem. Party v.
Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 586-87 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 1994); Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990). But that notion of “competitive standing” has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate. See Gottlieb v. Fed. Elec. Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998).”

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

Page 11.

Candidates can challenge voter’s qualifications. The above
admits that candidates can challenge candidates qualifications. Equal protection implies that voters can challenge candidates qualifications.

36 Old Atlantic

“he Stranger

RE: POST #16 – OLD ATLANTIC

Can you elaborate more on your post. It seems that precidence has been set by the McCain ruling, no?
Thx”

The judge’s ruling in that case admits that a candidate can challenge another candidate’s qualifications to hold office. I believe that candidates often challenge voters qualifications, e.g. Obama challenged the signatures on the petition in the state election referenced by a poster above. So it would seem that fairness and equal protection of the laws would imply that if a candidate can challenge a voter’s qualifications and another candidate’s qualifications, that a voter could challenge back a candidate’s qualifications.

on October 25, 2008 at 6:10 pm43 Old Atlantic

Judge ruling in Berg case:

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

If we look at page 8 the judge quotes Judge Posner on the issue of standing to sue.

This does not address that a candidate can sue a voter on the voter’s qualifications to vote. If one party can sue another, has standing, then the other has standing to sue the other back in the same case. If the candidate sues the voter as unqualified, the voter has the standing to sue back.

The probability that a voter will cast the tie vote is the same whether its the candidate suing that the voter is not qualified or the voter suing the candidate is not qualified. This probability is low if the odds are not 50/50 and is even if they are. Thus a low generalized interest does not disqualify a candidate suing a specific voter as unqualified, and the interest of the voter to sue the candidate as unqualified is as great or greater.

==

on October 25, 2008 at 6:20 pm50 Old Atlantic

Lujan 3 prong test is cited in both opinions, McCain and Berg v. Obama:

“So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).”

Page 8:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

Page 9:

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

If we look at a candidate suing a voter over the voter’s qualification to vote, the 3 part test is the same as a voter suing a candidate over a candidate’s qualification.

The election has not happened yet, so its prospective in each case. So (1) is the same. Moreover, the probability the voter changes the election is the same probability in either case.

(2) causal relation. This seems the same or better for a voter, a voter voting for a candidate has a low chance to change the election. Removing one of the two major candidates has a larger chance to change it.

(3) Removing a voter has a low chance to change the election. But removing a major candidate has a high chance. So the voter has a better case to sue the candidate on the candidate’s qualifications than the reverse.

The judge in the Berg case cited Judge Posner who is known as being part of the law and economics school of though at U Chicago. Posner was recruited from Stanford Law School by George Stigler, an econ prof at Chicago GSB c. 1969 to teach at Chicago as part of the law and econ group. Posner wrote papers with econ profs such as Merton Miller. Miller and Stigler both won Nobel Prizes in econ.

The paradox of voting was taught in one of Stigler’s class at U Chicago that the probability of changing the outcome was lower than the cost of voting. So if the judge in the Berg case quotes U Chicago prof and now judge Posner, then the low probability of a vote changing an election is also valid to consider.

The paradox of voting requires judges to make people feel their vote is more important than the actual chance to change the election to get people to vote. If everyone stayed home because the chance their vote wouldn’t matter kept them away then elections wouldn’t work. Judges are supposed to help sway individual voters to vote despite the paradox of voting, not make rulings that the low interest of voters in elections means they can’t sue and shouldn’t bother to vote either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

The relevant paradox of voting is Anthony Down not Arrow in this case.

==

67 Old Atlantic

49 socalannie

“So Barky can challenge & disqualify the voters in his state, but voters can’t challenge him! Unfreakingbelievable!”

Sums it up exactly. Thanks.

==

on October 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm2 Old Atlantic

Good points. If one swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, doesn’t the very administration of that oath mean you do have an interest and the ability to uphold it?

Doesn’t every new citizen swear such an oath? Doesn’t that mean every citizen has the interest and the ability to uphold it? If not why is the oath administered?

Its also administered in other situations, and its always to the Constitution not the president or the Chief Justice or the leaders of Congress.

Citizens are asked to fight and when they do they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution not an oath of allegiance to the person who is president at the time. Same thing. They are considered to have an interest.

If a person is drafted can they say in court, the probability my service will change the outcome of the war is so low that I don’t have to serve? Call it the paradox of the draft?

Lujan 3 prong test is cited in both opinions, McCain and Berg v. Obama:

“So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).”

Page 8:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

Page 9:

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

If we look at a candidate suing a voter over the voter’s qualification to vote, the 3 part test is the same as a voter suing a candidate over a candidate’s qualification.

The election has not happened yet, so its prospective in each case. So (1) is the same. Moreover, the probability the voter changes the election is the same probability in either case.

(2) causal relation. This seems the same or better for a voter, a voter voting for a candidate has a low chance to change the election. Removing one of the two major candidates has a larger chance to change it.

(3) Removing a voter has a low chance to change the election. But removing a major candidate has a high chance. So the voter has a better case to sue the candidate on the candidate’s qualifications than the reverse.

The judge in the Berg case cited Judge Posner who is known as being part of the law and economics school of though at U Chicago. Posner was recruited from Stanford Law School by George Stigler, an econ prof at Chicago GSB c. 1969 to teach at Chicago as part of the law and econ group. Posner wrote papers with econ profs such as Merton Miller. Miller and Stigler both won Nobel Prizes in econ.

The paradox of voting was taught in one of Stigler’s class at U Chicago that the probability of changing the outcome was lower than the cost of voting. So if the judge in the Berg case quotes U Chicago prof and now judge Posner, then the low probability of a vote changing an election is also valid to consider.

The paradox of voting requires judges to make people feel their vote is more important than the actual change to change the election to get people to vote. If everyone stayed home because the chance their vote wouldn’t matter kept them away then elections wouldn’t work. Judges are supposed to help sway individual voters to vote despite the paradox of voting, not make rulings that the low interest of voters in elections means they can’t sue and shouldn’t bother to vote either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

(The relevant paradox of voting is Anthony Down not Arrow in this case.)

Apply the 3 prong test to the draft.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf


So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).

When the government sues a draft dodger, and we apply the 3 part test, can the draft dodger say my relation to the war’s outcome is so small, my generalized interest is so little, that I can’t be sued/charged by the government for not showing up to be drafted?

==

24 stevec I join with you in asking Chuck Baldwin to challenge Obama. Also Bob Barr was a US Attorney and is now the Libertarian candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Early_career

“In 1986, Barr was appointed by President Ronald Reagan[9] to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia—a post Barr held until 1990.[8] Barr’s office prosecuted state and local officials, members of the Medellin drug cartel, and got a perjury indictment on then-sitting Republican Congressman Pat Swindall,[19] who ultimately served a year in prison on the charges. From 1990 to 1991, Barr was president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation,[8] an Atlanta-based law firm and policy center that litigates in support of “limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system”.[20]”

Sounds perfect.

I also agree with you and TD in 37, 39 above. The judge got it backwards. If Obama is unqualified, the millions who voted for him were cheated in the primaries. We don’t cheat millions more because it would mean exposing the fraud done on millions already. If defendants who cheat millions could use this line of reasoning, we can’t make our victims feel bad because by exposing the fraud, then that would be a license for fraud by the powerful and well funded.

That line of reasoning in the opinion suggested the judge had an outcome he wanted or was afraid to rule against Obama and the Democratic Party. The two parties have secrets in common that we don’t know about. They see information together or one after another that we never see. Universities, big law firms, and Wall Street have a lot of information the public never sees or doesn’t have the time to put together into larger wholes.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/the-law-is-an-ass/

==

Search George Stigler “paradox of voting”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m356751g62203u31/

http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/cpeworkshop/CES_Abrams2PDF.pdf

The research of Anthony Downs, Stigler and others shows that getting people to vote is a delicate balance. If people feel its rigged, or their vote doesn’t count, then they don’t vote. The cost of time and transport to vote is greater than the expected monetary value to the person (which can be large) times the chance the election is n+1 to n, and thus their vote was outcome determinative if they are in the n+1.

The Constitution doesn’t work if people don’t vote. Not voting is rational according to the Paradox of Voting. Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That requires them making people feel their vote matters, not telling them their vote is so unimportant they can’t even stop an unqualified person, i.e. foreigner, being CINC in a nuclear armed world. With nuclear weapons the CINC can change history and lead to the death of millions of voters by bad decisions. So that they are not foreign as the Constitution defines is critical to every citizen.

==

Search Posner “paradox of voting”

==

Each party and candidate implicitly pleads all their candidates are qualified each time they challenge anything or anyone, another candidate, a voter, a contribution, an ad, a procedure, etc.  Obama has requested DOJ investigations. By doing so, he implicitly plead that he was qualified. When they take funds or benefits they do so as well.

Every person or entity charged or claimed against by any candidate or party or party auxiliary has standing to challenge the qualification of any or all of the candidates of the associated party.  This includes all the campaign contributions, etc.

Each such claim by Obama brought against a voter, contributor, etc. has an implicit pleading by Obama that he is qualified.  That pleading can be challenged by each party charged or claimed against by Obama or the Democrats.  Obama’s requests for DOJ investigations certainly are an extreme example of that.

Obama has sent at least one letter to DOJ:

Search Obama DOJ

That contains an implicit pleading or claim that he is qualified.

All his fund raising appeals and every contribution he took and every vote in the primaries or in early voting has contained an implicit claim that he is qualified.  All have standing.

Berg could also bring a class action on behalf of

  1. All voters whose voting qualifications were challenged by Obama or the Democrats.
  2. All those who contributed funds to Obama or the Democrats.
  3. All those challenged otherwise by Obama or the Democrats.
%d bloggers like this: