Democrat asks Supreme Court to halt electors
Obama lets deadline slip by without responding to petition, so attorney takes next step
Posted: December 02, 2008
9:20 pm Eastern
2008 WorldNetDaily
Attorney Philip J. Berg
After President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate, the attorney is now filing a motion to stop Obama from taking office in January.
Berg has filed an emergency motion for immediate injunction, America’s Right blogger and legal writer Jeff Schreiber reports. Berg is asking the court to stop state certification of electors to keep the Electoral College from meeting Dec. 15 and casting votes for Obama. He is also seeking to postpone the official vote count Jan. 6 until the court reaches a decision on his appeal.
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a “natural-born American” as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND’s petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
“It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief,” Berg told Schreiber, “that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials … which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them.”
Berg filed his petition Oct. 30, and according to procedure, a response from the defendants was due yesterday. While the Federal Election Commission waived its right to respond to the complaint Nov. 18, there has been no word from Obama or the DNC.
The parties are not legally required to respond, and Berg said he doesn’t expect them to do so. He believes the defendants will argue that he lacks standing.
“If they were going to respond, I get the feeling that it would have been in there by now,” Berg told Schreiber. “The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we’re successful. That’s why, in the lower court, they just relied on a motion to dismiss based on standing. Here, they may not want to file an actual, specific response in the Supreme Court for fear they’ll be held to it later.”
Berg referenced nationwide efforts to demand Obama produce an original birth certificate.
“We’re finding that there is a great interest across the United States,” Berg said. “I’ve been on talk show after talk show, and the more the case is discussed, the more people are made aware of it and are disgusted by the fact that Obama just won’t simply produce the credentials showing he’s qualified. Hopefully, some authority will demand it.”
ShareFor the gallery of all the Funniest Pictures ever used on this website CLICK HERE
Would you like to subscribe to this feed?
Related Articles
1 user respond to this post
ABC NEWS GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
Below is the text of a letter Leo Donofrio just sent to ABC News:
Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.
The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you. I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born. You wrote,
“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”
The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen – at birth – a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.
And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008. That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.
There are two docket entries for Nov. 19. One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court. The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court. She will set you and your story straight.
The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court. There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference. In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action. There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled
“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”
You may find it here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon. On page 3, it states:
“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.“
Now go back and check the docket url for my case.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
Another misleading element of your story is the headline. The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status. Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.
But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President. So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.
If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.
My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case. After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report. We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission. I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.
Regards,
Leo C. Donofrio
Leave A Reply