Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lawsuit Filed Against Obama Claims He's Not Eligible for the Presidency

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawsuit Filed Against Obama Claims He's Not Eligible for the Presidency

    Lawsuit Filed Against Obama Claims He's Not Eligible for the Presidency

    Submitted by Julie on August 23, 2008 - 12:06pm. Elections Elections 2008 News Politics U.S. Politics




    Philip J. Berg, Esquire, of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on Thursday seeking a Declaratory Judgement and Injunction that Barack Obama does not meet the qualifications to become President of the United States. In the lawsuit Berg alleges that Obama is not eligible for the presidency because he is not a naturalized citizen, and/or lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia, and/or has duel citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.


    Berg said that he has filed the suit on behalf of the Democratic Party and citizens of the United States for their best interests. Berg, an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, filed the lawsuit, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, in Federal Court.


    In the filing Berg says:


    There have been numerous questions raised about Obamas background with no satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:


    1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?


    2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?


    3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?


    4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.


    5. Illinois Bar Application Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.


    If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries.


    Berg goes on to make very direct accusations against Obama, stating that he "lied and cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process."


    Interestingly, Obama isn't the only one who's citizenship has been questioned in this election. John McCain's citizenship was also questioned because he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which is not a US territory.


    The full court filings and claims can be found at ObamaCrimes.com, Berg's website. Philip J. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, former candidate for Govenor and US Senate in Democratic Primaries, former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County, and former member of the Democratic State Commitee.


    This filing comes less than two weeks after an AP photo was revealed of the school register of a child then known as Barry Soetoro, now known as Barack Hussein Obama, whose citizenship was listed as "Indonesian" and whose religion was listed as "Islam." the photo strongly contradicts the Obama camp's claim that he was not a Muslim, and is said to confirm he is a national of at least one other country. The AP has confirmed the authenticity of the photograph.
    Calling an Illegal Alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.

  • #2
    Obama's citizenship concerns, I can understand. But McCain's?

    Its my understanding that all military bases are considered US soil. Does that not apply to Panama?
    "...and the taking of a life is murder. And the punishment for murder is.... well it varies from state to state and by race, but...." - Homer J Simpson.

    Police: "Stop and we'll shoot!"
    Dilbert: "Stop AND we'll shoot? If you're gonna shoot, why should we stop?"
    Police: "Well, it would be alot easier for us. The targets at the shooting range don't run."

    R.I.P. Momma Coleman. You may have left our world, but you have NOT left our hearts.

    Comment


    • #3
      What's next? Is the Obama campaign going to charge Senator McCain with "war crimes" or being AWOL for his stay in North Vietnam?

      I'm a long way from being an Obama supporter, but really!
      "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

      Comment


      • #4
        No Bama!

        Go Mccain!
        ...but to live outside the law, you must be honest. -Bob Dylan

        Comment


        • #5
          Naturalization Law 101.

          McCain:

          Anyone born in the Pamama canal zone during a certain time period is a USC. I don't have my natz charts handy so I can't cite the dates at this time.

          Obama:

          Born in a U.S. State or territory makes one a U.S. citizen. This applies for life unless the person ex-patriates. Even then it is not difficult to re-obtain citizenship.

          Even if he was born outside of the U.S.: He was a legitimate child born to at least one USC parent. Classic Nat. Law chart #1 stuff.

          Without referencing charts and knowing exact dates I would say that the probability is high that both of these arguments are moot.


          All else aside, tactics like this are how Obama has gotten himself elected to date, by eliminating his opponents on technicalities. I say let McCain trounce the exaulted amateur honorably.
          The only thing we have to fear is change itself.

          Comment


          • #6
            Really. I'm certainly not a B. Hussein O. supporter but come on already. Much ado about nothing.
            sigpic
            Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun.
            And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son.

            Comment


            • #7

              Ditto for me. I am not a member of the "Messiah's Party" at all, but can think of plenty of other reasons for not supporting his candidacy or agenda. Where he was born is the least of our worries.


              As for McCain, he was "born" a citizen because his parents were US citizens....right? I had childhood friends who were born in Europe (both on a US Army post and in 'civilian' hospitals outside the bases) and they are considered bona fide Americans because their parents were on legitimate active duty with the US Government or military overseas.

              What if both parents were citizens of the USA who happened to be vacationing in Italy and they had a child there? Would the kid not be a US citizen? Would the baby come out speaking Italian? LOL!



              P.S. Socialist tendencies bother me more than the city of one's birth!

              The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

              The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

              ------------------------------------------------

              "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

              Comment


              • #8
                I assume this attorney has lots of money to waste.
                Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed.
                Happiness never decreases by being shared. -- Buddhist quotation
                A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -- Proverbs 15:1

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post

                  Ditto for me. I am not a member of the "Messiah's Party" at all, but can think of plenty of other reasons for not supporting his candidacy or agenda. Where he was born is the least of our worries.


                  As for McCain, he was "born" a citizen because his parents were US citizens....right? I had childhood friends who were born in Europe (both on a US Army post and in 'civilian' hospitals outside the bases) and they are considered bona fide Americans because their parents were on legitimate active duty with the US Government or military overseas.

                  What if both parents were citizens of the USA who happened to be vacationing in Italy and they had a child there? Would the kid not be a US citizen? Would the baby come out speaking Italian? LOL!



                  P.S. Socialist tendencies bother me more than the city of one's birth!

                  You are correct. Citizenship by birth is based on two principals; [I]jus soli[I] the law of land and jus sanguinis the law of blood. If a person is born on U.S. soil under jurisdiction of the U.S. then that person is a citizen, this is the law of land. If a person is born to U.S. citizen parents then the person is a citizen. This is the law of blood overly simplified. The law of blood gets interesting when only one parent is a citizen and whether or not the child is legitimate.
                  The only thing we have to fear is change itself.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This will go about as far as the "Obama has a friend who was an accomplice to another person's crime" ordeal.

                    People will look for virtually anything.
                    When talking to a fool, be sure he isn't doing the same.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There are issues and they need to be addressed before he is allowed to steal the presidency. I was born in Tokyo, Japan of two US Citizens. My dad was stationed there in the US. Army so I am a citizen by birth, however, I held a dual citizenship (not knowingly) until I turned 18. I joined the Army at 17 and I had to have a department of state certificate saying I was a US Citizen. I didn't have said document and the recuriter had to call and get it for me before I was allowed to enlist.

                      I believe the issue needs a direct answer by the powers to be. Holding the most powerful position in the United State isn't up for grabs by anyone that wants it. If he is a US citizen, then so be it, as long as he meets the qualifications to run, then I have no problem with that, But what if he isn't. Are we so blind that we willling to let him or anyone for that matter become our Commander in Chief for the sake of political correctness and liberalism?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by blackhorse View Post
                        I believe the issue needs a direct answer by the powers to be. Holding the most powerful position in the United State isn't up for grabs by anyone that wants it. If he is a US citizen, then so be it, as long as he meets the qualifications to run, then I have no problem with that, But what if he isn't. Are we so blind that we willling to let him or anyone for that matter become our Commander in Chief for the sake of political correctness and liberalism?

                        Well, we had a guy in there for eight years who had protested against his country during time of conflict and nobody raised an eyebrow about it.

                        The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                        The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                        ------------------------------------------------

                        "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You are correct. Citizenship by birth is based on two principals; jus soli the law of land and jus sanguinis the law of blood. If a person is born on U.S. soil under jurisdiction of the U.S. then that person is a citizen, this is the law of land. If a person is born to U.S. citizen parents then the person is a citizen. This is the law of blood overly simplified. The law of blood gets interesting when only one parent is a citizen and whether or not the child is legitimate.

                          Using that logic (with which I mostly agree), then the offspring of illegal immigrants should not be citizens (i.e., the anchor babies) here for two reasons.

                          First of all, they are born of people who are foreign nationals. Second, illegal entry into our nation (crossing the border without permission) would {or at least should} mean that the parents are not under 'jurisdiction' of the United States.

                          I know that many European nations do not automatically grant citizenship to children born to people who are on their soil illegally. Why should we in the US continue to do so?


                          P.S. If memory serves me correctly, the "anchor babies" are considered citizens because of twisted modern interpretation of a court case long ago that (rightfully) assured full citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. Maybe I am off base, but know I am at least in the ball park.

                          The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                          The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                          ------------------------------------------------

                          "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post

                            Using that logic (with which I mostly agree), then the offspring of illegal immigrants should not be citizens (i.e., the anchor babies) here for two reasons.

                            First of all, they are born of people who are foreign nationals. Second, illegal entry into our nation (crossing the border without permission) would {or at least should} mean that the parents are not under 'jurisdiction' of the United States.

                            I know that many European nations do not automatically grant citizenship to children born to people who are on their soil illegally. Why should we in the US continue to do so?


                            P.S. If memory serves me correctly, the "anchor babies" are considered citizens because of twisted modern interpretation of a court case long ago that (rightfully) assured full citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. Maybe I am off base, but know I am at least in the ball park.
                            Jurisdiction means they are in the United States or a US territory AND not under the jurisdiction of another country (ie.. diplomatic immunity).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by madchiken View Post
                              Jurisdiction means they are in the United States or a US territory AND not under the jurisdiction of another country (ie.. diplomatic immunity).


                              I know what it "means" by modern interpretation, but I sure tend to lean towards 'old school' thinking on this one. If someone enters our country illegally, they should be under the jurisdiction of their own country.

                              Hey, maybe we could just give the illegal immigrants diplomatic immunity so that their kids could never be "anchor babies" in the USA.


                              ~~ Humor switch turned "on" this evening. ~~

                              The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                              The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                              ------------------------------------------------

                              "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2858 users online. 157 members and 2701 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X