« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »
October 31, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his citizenship eligibility to serve as President of the United States has been dismissed with the ruling that Philip Berg, the plaintiff, had no standing as a US voting citizen to bring the suit. Dismissal on these grounds means the judge as decided that the MERITS of the suit don't have to be weighed or decided (so he won't be on the hook for such a decision either way!) The FACTS of the case never get presented in open court, and the documents don't have to be produced. A very clean getaway for Obama.
The judge's ruling was based on precedents where voters were not found to have standing because they could not demonstrate direct harm to them or made vague generalities about wrong done to the general population. Lower courts have tended to avoid granting standing, seemingly preventing David from causing Goliath any great annoyance.
The Berg case is different, however. If Obama is elected President, and is later found to be ineligible to hold that office, the entire nation will suffer through a constitutional crisis. Berg simply sought to have an examination of the facts to determine the validity of Obama's candidacy. Those facts have not yet been vetted by a court! If a voting citizen of the United States does not have standing to prevent a national crisis of such a magnitude by raising the question of eligibility, to be decided on the evidence in open court, WHO DOES?
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court."
There are even questions on whether the judge was "influenced" or had the decision written for him by some tied to Obama: http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/
It remains to be seen whether SCOTUS will hear the case, and even if so, it would appear the election will take place before the matter is legally settled.
Berg's suit sought to present evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya, where under the law at the time, his mother (a US citizen) would have had to have been 19 years old to have conferred her citizenship to him. (Obama ACKNOWLEDGES dual citizenship with Kenya on his website). Berg also sought to produce evidence that Obama later held Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and moved with him to Indonesia. Indonesia and the US did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, so the only valid citizenship he would have held in that case is Indonesian. He would have expatriated any US or other citizenship held.
Even if he subsequently regained US citizenship, it would be thru naturalization, which is expressly ineligible to serve as POTUS under Article II of the Constitution.
These facts have not been decided or ruled invalid. They have not been heard in court. The case was dismissed on the basis of WHO was bringing it, and not on its merits. The question of Obama's eligibility to serve REMAINS an open question.
There are other lawsuits pending on the issue. Marquis v Reed in the state of WA names the Secretary of State in Washington as the defendant rather than Obama – so it's possible a citizen of the state may be found to have "standing". This suit seeks to present the same facts as evidence that the Secretary of State has failed to verify Obama's eligibility before placing his name on the ballot. Marquis says similar suits are in progress in 10 other states.
In the end, this question will, in all likelihood, remain unanswered until after the election. Voters should be aware that it is still an open question as they head to the polls.
Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
October 26, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances. (Which makes his covert and quite possibly illegal activities [Logan Act?] on behalf of Kenya's thugocrat, Odinga, all the more relevant and disturbing.)
Obama and Kenya's Thugocrat, Odinga
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)
Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/
Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I'm just asking...
The judge in the Berg suit has not, to this date, granted Obama's motion to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward. (If the case has no merit, why hasn't the judge granted the relief Obama filed for??) Now Obama has a second suit he must contend with. Both could be easily dispensed with by providing the demanded documentation which would prove he is a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to serve. He has not produced these documents and instead seeks to DELAY discovery and production of any documents while he makes motions to dismiss. The "proof" of eligibility he's offered is a "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his "Fight the Smears" website, and duplicated on Factcheck.org and the Daily Kos sites! (Forensic experts have declared it a forgery!) Even if it were a genuine Hawaiian "Birth Certificate" with raised seal (and it's not), it would still not adequately address the Indonesian citizenship issue which Obama has yet to acknowledge!
The text of the new suit appears below. Note the factual argument in section 5 which is the basis of the case.
(Hey, anyone know a good pro-bono attorney in MO??? I'd love to bring a similar suit that our loony leftist Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, would have to respond to!!)
STEVEN R MARQUIS Plaintiff
vs.
SAMUEL SUMNER REED, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION NO___________
1. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER
1.1. Plaintiff Steven R Marquis, [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief, to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the Office of Washington State, Secretary of State by Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed, [hereinafter Defendant”].
1.2. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the presidential candidate Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President and demands that the Office of Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from another government entity so charged with overseeing the election process such as the Federal Elections Commission.
1.3. Plaintive argues that when a challenge is received by the Washington State, Secretary of State to the qualification for office of a candidate appearing on the Washington State Ballot that the entire burden of proof falls on the Candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the Washington State, Secretary of State as would be normal and customary to establish ones minimum qualifications for office.
1.4. Plaintiff argues that the Office of Secretary of State has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.
1.5. Plaintiff argues that is it only sufficient to show reasonable cause for complaint to the Secretary of State for his Office to require documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation that the Secretary of State has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.
1.6. Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process and maintain the people’s confidence in the government.
2. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2.1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." .
2.2. Mr. Barack H. Obama is a candidate for United States Office of the President. However, Mr. Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is, he must be a "natural born" citizen. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. That challenge in an of itself further demonstrates plaintiff’s argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions exist at this late hour preceding the election.
2.3. The Washington State office of Secretary of State is responsible for the veracity of the Washington State election process from verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.
2.4. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot that the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the constitutions and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the Office of the Secretary of State with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of Secretary of state has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this complaint seeks a directive to the Washington State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of Washington State.
2.5. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government; we have a Washington State ballot where we elect electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the Washington Secretary of State has prevue over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.
2.6. This complaint of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of candidate qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the Washington State, Secretary of State’s duty to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.
2.7. To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges and impeachment process, this complaint seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the election. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.
2.8. This complaint seeks specifically to verify through the office of the Washington Secretary of State that Mr. Obama is a "natural born" citizen.
2.9. At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts which challenge will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the election. The Washington State, Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Red has not carried out that fundamental duty.
2.10. The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. To date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding the candidates basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this complaint request the Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed to formally request of Hawaii State Health Department officials to produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.
2.11. This complaint requests that Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed formally requests primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is requested to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital if so identified on a live birth certificate.
2.12. Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part to not have a valid certified US birth certificate or to otherwise due to have been revealed by such examination of original records to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his nomination be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, Plaintiff as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:
2.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;
2.12.2. Irreparable harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.
2.12.3. If the candidate Mr. Obama were to secure the election and later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset.
2.13. It was well expected that after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months now that Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of the candidate Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to Plaintiff’s repeated request to the Office Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed.
3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.1. As we do not have federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President. This case arises under the Washington Constitution RCW 42.04.020 and Section 15, Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution and Chapter 43.07 RCW. and the laws of the United States and presents a state question within this Court's jurisdiction.
4. PARTIES
4.1. Plaintiff, Steven Russel Marquis [hereinafter "Plaintiff'], is an adult individual with a home address of 34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024. Citizen USA.
4.2. Defendant, Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed is an adult individual with an office address of PO Box 40220 Olympia, WA 98504-0220. Washington State, Secretary of State.
5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.
5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Washington State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.
5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.
5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.
5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.
5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.
5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.
5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.
5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.
5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.
5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961
5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.
5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.c. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.
5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.
5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.
5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.
5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.
5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.
5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:
6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.
6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.
6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Washington State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.
6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.
6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Washington State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.
7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.
7.2. Plaintiff requests Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.
7.3. Direct Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.
7.4. Plaintiff requests the Washington State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.
7.5. If Secretary Sam Reed is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Sam Reed must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven R Marquis
34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024
425-698-7084
VERIFICATION
I, STEVEN R MARQUIS, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
October 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Sure, Barack Obama's associations are troubling and raise questions of his values, world view, judgment, character and honesty... and Bill Ayers isn't the half of it.
But for so many of us today, these issues are just so much "talking heads" noise. The American public is much more focused, in this day of financial turmoil, on "meat and potatoes" issues of the economy. And the health of Wall Street isn't as significant as the "Main Street" viewpoint of "what about my job, my healthcare, my TAXES?"
The discussion of taxes occupied a prominent portion of the final debate and "Joe the Plumber" has become a phenomenon!
Unfortunately, neither candidate clearly articulated their own or their opponent's tax policies clearly or concisely enough that the casual viewer could possibly extract a lucid understanding of how their policies would or could affect U.S. It then falls to analysts and commentators to distill it all down for public consumption.
So, here are some Tax Facts to bear in mind as you evaluate the candidates and their statements on taxes.
Sadly, most Americans do not understand these facts, and are therefore easily swayed by eloquent "we're going to take care of you" speeches. Whenever a politician promises you a free goodie, please: ask “how?”
October 19, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Isn't it interesting how predictable the American Left is? When someone scores an indisputable point against "the One", they ignore the message and attack the messenger! "Joe the Plumber" has revealed and highlighted Obama's socialistic agenda – and it's had an impact on Obama's support! So he must be destroyed.
So, first, we heard the immediate "I don't know any plumbers making $250,000" argument. I'm still not sure what the purpose of such a statement could possibly be, but the dismissive tone accompanying the statement is obviously intended to attempt to ridicule Joe away! But the statement is completely disingenuous, as Joe didn't even say he was a plumber! He said he's considering buying a PLUMBING COMPANY, which EMPLOYS plumbers, and which GROSSES around a quarter mil. He didn't say he makes $250K. He didn't say he'd EARN 250K after buying the business. The business grosses $250K. The business pays it's employees. The business maintains its vehicles. The business buys its materials. The business pays for its office, phones and utilities. The business pays its taxes. The business pays to advertise. After all that, the business owner can take a salary.
Next the LeftMedia lights up with the accusation that Joe isn't even a registered voter. Aside from the fact that this is blatantly false… Joe is registered and voted in the OH primaries… what possible relevance would this have? I thought ACORN has, as its purpose, to get unregistered people interested, active and REGISTERED now! So here's a guy who's now very interested and engaged in the political process. We should rejoice!
So then the thugocracy dispatches their investigators to dig dirt on Joe. They claim he's not licensed… But he doesn't need one presently, and the company he works for has one! From the Toledo Blade, "According to Lucas County Building Inspection records, A. W. Newell Corp. does maintain a state plumbing license, and one with the City of Toledo, but would not be allowed to work in Lucas County outside of Toledo without a county license." Does he even need one to OWN a plumbing company that EMPLOYS plumbers? And again, how is this relevant to Obama's Socialism?
Finally, the thugs discover that Joe has a tax lien on about $1100 he owes in back taxes. Does this mean he's not credible to ask Obama a question on the impact of his tax policies? Does this have bearing on the fact that Obama's answers reveal him to be a Robin Hood Socialist bent on redistribution of wealth? It would seem that someone struggling to meet his CURRENT tax liability would be uniquely appropriate to question how Obama's policies might make matters worse!
You may have heard the phrase, "Don't kill the messenger." This phrase is usually attributed to the ancient Greek and then later Roman custom of employing messengers to carry news throughout the empire. The law PROTECTED these messengers, and decreed that they should be allowed to pass unharmed as they carried out their duty, even if the recipients found the message distasteful.
Sadly, Obama and his minions DO try to destroy anyone who can bring a message critical or damaging to the campaign. Live long and prosper, Joe!
Copyright © 2008 by
Doug Edelman
October 17, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
The Obama defenders are complaining that William Ayers’ radical bombings in the late 1960s and early 1970s are dismissible as "old news." They declare Obama's associations to be "irrelevant." (Somehow I'm prompted to wonder what they'd say if McCain were a friend of a 1940s Nazi prison camp guard.) Yet Obama's associations are relevant, as they are in fact current news, and they speak to his judgment, character and to his political proclivities and inclinations. And we can never forget that a man is known by the company he keeps.
Here is a brief accounting of over a dozen of Obama’s long-time colleagues, associates and friends.
Khalid al-Mansour: the anti-Semite Black Nationalist racist who changed his name from Don Marshall and converted to Islam, was a patron of Obama’s and helped advance Obama’s candidacy to law school. He was instrumental in starting the violent Black Panthers group, reportedly became Kind Saud’s attorney and represents OPEC. No wonder Obama doesn't want to drill anywhere, although he changed that tune in last Tuesday's debate in an apparent attempt to drill for votes.
As an article in FrontPageMag.com reported, “And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate.”
It is notable that Khalid al-Mansour is an advisor and friend to Prince al-Walid bin Talal, the Saudi sheik to whom Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million check right after 9/11 because bin Talal stated that America brought the bloodthirsty attack on itself due to our foreign policy.
Rashid Khalidi: an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive “racist” state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian “community organization” in Chicago is another beneficiary of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund. It promotes an agenda that would horrify Obama’s Jewish supporters and any normal person. In fact, both Sen. Obama and Mr. Ayers actually spoke at a testimonial dinner for Rashid Khalidi.
According to Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and the two families dined together a number of times,’ a source on the University of Chicago faculty told WorldNet Daily. ‘The Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.’ ”
Ingrid Mattson: President of the troubling Islamic Society of North America, a group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial, and a woman whom Obama invited to lead prayer at the Democrat Convention, which she did.
Frank Marshall Davis: another of Obama's mentors mentioned in his book, a well-known Stalinist Communist whose devotion to the Soviet Union and hatred for an America which he described as racist and imperialistic put him under FBI surveillance for at least 19 years. It is quite possible that Davis did more to shape Obama’s world view than many in his entourage.
Tony Rezko: convicted felon of fraud and shady dealings, he and Obama were very close. Rezko helped get Obama a sweetheart mortgage, and he bundled tons of money for Obama’s campaign. Rezko bought property (under another sweetheart deal) to be Obama's neighbor. As of today, it appears Rezko is willing to talk to reduce his sentence.
William Ayers: Ayers is still today (this is not an “old news” story) an unrepentant terrorist. He was quoted (coincidentally on September 11, 2001, in the New York Times) as being proud and unapologetic for the bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol and the New York City Police where several police officers were murdered as a result. In fact, he stated that his only regret was that they hadn't done more. For a smug thug like this, Sen. Obama – unbelievably – did the favor of writing a dust-jacket blurb forMr. Ayers' 2001 book, "Fugitive Days".
Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Foundation together, overseeing the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. Currently, or rather, inexplicably, all the related records remain "unavailable."
Interestingly, the Annenberg Foundation runs the "Factcheck.org" site that Obama uses as his only source of "facts" on his "fight the smears" website. Why or how factcheck.org is given any mainstream media credibility as a fact source is laughable. The mainstream press should be ashamed of itself for using them.
Saved from jail, unfortunately, by legal technicalities, Ayers is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another Weathermen terrorist once on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List, who did serve time for refusing to testify about the death of other Weathermen when a bomb they were building blew up prematurely. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.''
Bernardine Dohrn, who in the 80’s worked at the same time with Michelle Obama for the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin,was also a fan of Charles Manson:
At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.
ACORN: An organization so fraught with voter fraud they should be closed down and indicted under RICO. Where you're never too dead to vote twice. Ever wonder what a "community organizer" is? Think ACORN. For whom was Obama a "constitutional lawyer"? ACORN. Currently, numerous ACORN offices are being raided by the FBI and investigated for ongoing and major voter fraud.
Fannie/Freddie: Obama was the number two campaign contribution recipient from Freddie and Fannie execs, behind Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd. And bear in mind, those are numbers compiled over nine years. Obama has been a senator only for four of those years and raked in almost as much dough as Dodd did in all nine years.
Franklin Raines/Jim Johnson: Former heads of Fannie Mae, both men were removed for impropriety. Both made tens of millions of dollars from their time at the helm, helping to pilot the economy onto the rocks. Are there two people more responsible for the current economic mess? Besides Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, they may have had more to do with creating the problem than anyone else... and they're in Obama's inner circle giving economic advice; Jim Johnson was actually chosen to vet Obama's VP Pick.
Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger: radical, fervently anti-American, and anti-Semitic. The Rev. Louis Farrakhan, also an anti-Semite and black racist, was recently honored by Rev. Wright for “Lifetime Achievement”. And Obama called them mentors, friends and/or spiritual advisors. What did he learn from them over the decades of their association? And why did he not reject their views until it was politically expedient for him to do so?
Michelle Obama: Mrs. Obama seems to hold radical separatist views consistent with a 20-year attendance and tutelage under Rev. Wright. Her college thesis was on assimilation vs. "the black culture,” and she was openly dismayed that so many blacks were choosing to assimilate into the American melting-pot culture. She also stated on the campaign trail that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. This, from a possible First Lady of the land.
From anti-American at best, to virulently anti-American and criminal anti-American at worst, this is the rag-tag crowd with whom Obama has chosen to build his career and personal relationships for the past few decades. That such a person – and crowd - could end up holding the fate and deepest secrets of our most precious jewel, America, in their hands – as well as all our futures - is deeply troubling, to say the least, and it would be an unspeakable tragedy if it were to transpire.
October 13, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
But before the House considers, or worse, ACCEPTS any permutation of the Paulson Bailout Plan, they must remember that you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear… and no amount of lipstick will sell this stinker of a porker to the American people! Even without the additional $150 in pork, think about this: How much is $700 Billion? More than the government spent COMBINED in Fiscal 2006 for: Medicaid $180.6 in Billions Education $118.6 Health $ 63.9 Transportation $ 70.2 Veterans Benefits $ 70.0 Community Development $ 54.5 Food & Nutrition Assistance $ 53.9 Justice System $ 41.0 Housing Assistance $ 38.3 TOTAL: $691.0 Source: Budget of the United States According to CNN August 14, there were 750,000 homes currently in foreclosure. In addition to hurting the homeowners, these troubled assets set the value of the lenders' capitol plummeting due to the “Mark to Market” Accounting rules. $700 Billion divided by 750,000 homes = 933,333 PER HOME! As ridiculous as this might be, and I'm not actually proposing it (just using it to illustrate JUST HOW bad the Paulson plan is!), why don’t we just give each troubled homeowner $100,000 toward their mortgage to keep them in their home and reduce or eliminate their balance? We can then refinance any remaining balances for 15 years at 7% fixed. This would cost taxpayers only $75 Billion, the homeowners get to keep their homes and reduce or eliminate their house payments. The banks get instant liquidity. Balances under $100,000 are paid off and come off the lenders’ books! The lenders get to convert bad loans over $100,000 balance to smaller, better risk loans at a nice fat 7% and suddenly have VALUE again. The only loser... the guy who bought a home he can afford, and who continues making his payments, on time. Of course, this would be an unconscionable giveaway bailout, giving taxpayer money to people who bought houses they couldn't afford... and yet it's more measured, more reasonable and more likely to WORK than the Paulson plan... which does nothing to address the cause of the problem: the CRA, Mark to Market, and corruption at Fannie & Freddie, which MUST be dismantled or at least downsized! And it doesn’t help the people who took loans they couldn’t afford either! It bails out the lenders for making bad loans and taking unacceptable risks. But… we have to do SOMETHING!! Or do we? We’re told that inaction will melt the economy. But it won’t! And WHAT does the Government do WELL anyway? Do you trust them to fix the problem? Most often (and in this case), Government IS the problem; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&feature=bz301 and www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0agm711PQ. No bailout has passed yet. The day the House failed to pass it, the market dropped 777 points. The doomsday crowd went berserk! Yet when you realize that the market was down over 300 points BEFORE the vote, the failure of the bill only accounts for a 400 odd point drop. Interestingly, the very next day, the market bounced back with the 3rd largest point daily gain in history… and essentially nullified that post-vote loss! Then the Senate passed their pork-laden version of the bailout, and the market dropped precipitously again! I guess you could say the market reacted NEGATIVELY to the bailout!! So how does it affect “ Remember EF Hutton? When they spoke, people listened… till they stopped listening. Where are they now? Do you care? Remember Smith Barney? They made money the old fashioned way… they earned it! They’re not earning much now, are they? Did their evaporation off the face of the earth hurt you? The fact is that brokerages and even banks have failed before and will again. YOUR deposits are insured and you retain access to your funds. YOUR stock assets in your portfolio are YOURS and not your brokers. If your broker goes under, you still own your stocks. Find another broker to handle your trades! I recently proposed a workable plan that would bolster confidence in the markets and ease the capitalization/credit/valuation problems without socializing the markets or giving corporate welfare to Wall Street or handing over inordinate power to Paulson. Read it at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/09/30/fixing_the_financial_crisis_without_socializing_the_market.thtml If our lawmakers would consider implementing such a plan our economy would improve without mortgaging our future generations to throw $700 Billion or more at it. For too long Fannie/Freddie and Wall Street have played fast and loose, always with the understanding that if things turned sour, the Government would come to the rescue. They’ve behaved (even if we exclude corruption and cooking books) like spoiled children who act irresponsibly and get in trouble frequently, only to look to their parents to bail them out – and their expectations keep getting met! The best thing such a parent can do is put a stop to it – and institute some “tough love”. When they begin to stand firm, saying “NO, you made your bed, now bear your consequences”, that is the beginning of the maturing of the child. It’s time that the Wall Street institutions begin to grow up. Will some firms fail? Yes. And they’ll be scooped up at bargain prices by firms who HAVE investable capital! Will people lose jobs? Yes. Will they get other jobs? If they have marketable skills, they will! Will the “Market” handle their absence… sure. The services they provided will be offered by other, more innovative, more competitive and more successful enterprises. THAT is our capitalistic market-driven system… and when ALLOWED to work, it DOES. Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.
October 03, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)












