Is Barry Obama a naturalized citizen?

[BTS]

Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency







A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.



Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.



"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".



Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.



Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.



In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.



Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.



Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.



Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed "natural born," that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.



The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama's half-sister.



"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg stated. "If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws."



"It is unfair to the country," he continued, "for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected."









Essentially, the argument is this:


Senator Obama could put this whole issue to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate.

Senator Obama has chosen not to do so.

The defendants (other than Obama) have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral system by properly vetting the qualifications of candidates, which they have failed to perform.

Mr. Berg, other Americans, and our system of government are damaged by this failure.

Senator Obama, who has collected $425,000,000 in campaign contributions, has perpetrated a fraud.

[BTS]

Judge Orders Obama to Produce Birth Certificate



Posted by: Dr. Richard Swier | 10/04/2008 4:10 PM



On September 29, 2008 US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, the federal magistrate for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in the matter of Philip J. Berg vs Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the world was distracted by the $700 billion subprime mortgage crisis. Obama signed a breathe of relief as the mainstream media chose to ignore the question:

"Can Senator Barack Hussein Obama legally seek the office of President of the United States?"

The flap began in June when National Review's Jim Geraghty raised the question and asked the Obama Campaign to release a copy of his birth certificate in order to prove that he actually was born in the United States. (Reports had previously surfaced claiming that Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, told reporters that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya. She reportedly told reporters that when her son, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya he was accompanied by a pregnant white wife who was close to term.)

[BTS]

Here is the first part of text of the lawsuit long but it seems to have merit:





Part 1:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :



Plaintiff

:

vs.



:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

:

[LEFT]BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :

Defendants



:

ORDER

ON DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.

Barclay Surrick on Defendant’s Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National

Committee’s Motion to Dismiss. Having reviewed the Motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition

to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED



that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6) is DENIED. It is further ORDER of this Court that the following discovery is

to be turned over to Plaintiff within three (3) days:

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version)

Birth Certificate; and

2. A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;

3. A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: September ______, 2008

______________________________

Hon. R. Barclay Surrick

United States District Court Judge

For the Eastern District of PA

BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 13

Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :

Plaintiff



:

vs.



:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :

Defendants



:

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO

DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S, MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within

Opposition and Brief in support thereof to Defendant’s, Barack Hussein Obama

[hereinafter “Obama”] and the Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter “DNC”]

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the following

grounds:

• Plaintiff has standing to bring suit against Obama and the DNC pursuant

to the following:

(1) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702;

(2) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998);

(3)



Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1481(b);

(4) Plaintiff has Standing under 5 U.S.C. §552(B);

(5) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, Civil Rights

and Elective Franchise; and

(6) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction.

• Claims are stated in which relief can be granted. Pleadings in a Complaint

are that of Notice Pleading and not Fact Pleading;

• Plaintiff has suffered and imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a

legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized; and

•



The injury suffered by Plaintiff is the kind of injury that Congress

expected might be addressed under the statute. Plaintiff is within the zone of interest

protected by the statute or constitutional provision.

• It is imperative Obama be Court Ordered to turn over the following items

in order resolve the issues presented prior to the Presidential Election:

(a) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” version ( “original” long

version) Birth Certificate; and

(b). A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship; and

(c) A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.

At the time Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was requesting protections

from the Court in order to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the

Democratic Presidential Nominee as Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the

United States. However, Obama was nominated by the DNC as the Democratic

Presidential Nominee. For this reason, Plaintiff must amend his Complaint and will be

requesting this Court leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

A. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party.

Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the

United States Constitution. Plaintiff has donated money and billable hours to Democratic

Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee. Plaintiff has

relied on the DNC’s promises to uphold our Constitution, which includes properly

vetting our Presidential Nominee and ensuring our Party’s Nominee is eligible to serve as

President of the United States pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States

Constitution.

In addition, Plaintiff has trusted the Federal Election Committee (“FEC”) that

they would ensure our Presidential and Congress candidates were eligible for the

positions which they were seeking and running a fair and legitimate campaign process.

Plaintiff has relied on the FEC, DNC and all our Elected Office Holders to uphold our

Constitution and to ensure an illegal alien and/or a naturalized citizen would not be able

to secure the position of President of the United States.

The DNC has pledged and promised Plaintiff and all Democratic individuals they

believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions and our traditions are proper and

work.

The DNC pledged and promised Plaintiff and all Democratic individuals they will

ensure our Constitution is not a nuisance and have assured Plaintiff and democratic

individuals the United States Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It makes

freedom and self-governance possible, and helps to protect our security. The Democratic

Party has pledged and promised Plaintiff and other Democratic individuals they will

maintain and restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return

our Nation to the best traditions, including their commitment to government by law.

Based on the DNC’s promises and assurances, Plaintiff and other democratic

individuals have donated money in good faith to the DNC and other Democratic

Presidential Nominees. Money donated to the DNC is used to plan the Party's

quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promote the election of eligible Party

candidates, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, with both

technical and financial support; and works with national, state and local party

organizations, elected officials, candidates and constituencies to respond to the needs and

views of the Democratic electorate and the nation.

In vetting the Presidential candidate, among other things, the DNC and FEC are

required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and

the Presidential nominee, if elected, is qualified and eligible to serve pursuant to our

United States Constitution.

In order to be eligible and qualified to run for the Office of the President of the

United States you must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II,

Section I.

There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann

Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that 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.

Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961

and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother

on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in

Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her

pregnancy; however, she 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). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in

Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a

“registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in

Hawaii.

Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii,

Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital

and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,”

states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the

subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.

Furthermore, the Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by

the Education Laboratory School, attached as EXHIBIT “1”, did a several page article

of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter

reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in

the Star Bulletin, attached as EXHIBIT “2”, and this time, Maya states Obama was

born August 4, 1961 in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children.

Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer 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. to his father, a Kenyan

citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen, attached as EXHIBIT “3”.

Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his

mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about

1966, when Obama was approximately five (5) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann

Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii

University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship,

when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up residency in Indonesia. Loss of

citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1967) required that

foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization

occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a

national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows

the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is

presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an

acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama,

giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and

his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir

(autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left

Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their

move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been

enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his

mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in

school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his

son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male

acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian

State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of

2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of

1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code

(Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie)

states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born

outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by

father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made

prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia

Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second

Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002,

Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states,



“(1) Citizens shall consist of

indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized

[sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian

citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian

citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted

child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual

citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother

was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian

spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to

attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore,

in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a

citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with

Government records.

Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in

Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration, attached as

EXHIBIT “4”



, in which 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 Hawaii, 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. At the time Obama

was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of

the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required

to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card

identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal

names of all family members.

Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian

citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence attached hereto

supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia

natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file

applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a

naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama

and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.

Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court

process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged

(which only required the signing of a birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro,

one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his

citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was

required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural

citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing

Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian. Again, the

registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the

Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.

The

[/LEFT]



Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual

[LEFT]citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.

In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague

Convention of 1930.

In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten

(10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely

no



way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever

held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed

with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a

Certification of Citizenship.

Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never Naturalized

in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to

Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and

therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of

Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.

Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981.

The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in

turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and

Pakistan's Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide

arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim

men--jihadists--from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so

dangerous that it was on the State Department's travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-

Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official

business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have

success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled

on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal

every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India,

Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he

was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon

"taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a

foreign state...after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§1401(a)(1) Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or

adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s

school record attached as Exhibit “4”.

Plaintiffs as well as many other democratic American citizens have requested

proof of Obama’s citizenship status, however to no avail. Obama has promised to be an

open and honest candidate, however, refuses to remove any doubts from Plaintiff’s and

all the other democratic minds and prove his eligibility to serve as President of the United

States.

Plaintiff’s civil rights under the due process rights and equal protection of the

laws secured by the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth (14th) Amendment have been violated

by Obama’s illegal campaign and will continue to be violated if Obama is allowed to

continue his campaign and if elected, assume the position of President of the United

States. The DNC and FEC have allowed Obama to continue his campaigning, knowing

these issues have arisen and have failed to take and/or instigate the proper investigation

into said matters to protect Plaintiff and other registered voters. Therefore, the only

option Plaintiff had to secure and protect his civil rights was to bring action before this

Honorable Court. Moreover, our laws which protect Plaintiff, a legal registered voter,

and other registered voters from fraudulent campaign schemes have been violated by the

Defendants, 2 U.S.C. §437c, 2 U.S.C §437(g). Plaintiff has standing to bring suit

pursuant to 5 U.S. C §702, as well as 8 U.S. C §1481(b).

Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the Liberty clause of the Fourteenth (14th)

Amendment of the United States Constitution have already been violated. It has been

announced in the main stream media that Obama’s “briefing” has already begun into our

National Secrets, our Nations Top Secrets, which Obama is not privy too and in violation

of our National Security, as Obama is not a legal citizen of the United States. This has

placed Plaintiff and other citizens of the United States in grave danger. Plaintiff’s

Liberty as guaranteed will further be violated if Obama is allowed to be voted into and

assume the position of President of the United States; Plaintiff will be further damaged

and is in serious jeopardy.

Plaintiff filed the within action on or about August 21, 2008 against Defendants

seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, declaring Obama an illegal alien and/or only a

“naturalized” citizen ineligible to serve as President of the United States and enjoining

the DNC and FEC from placing Obama’s name on the ballot and prohibiting Obama

from further campaigning to be elected as President of the United States, a position he is

ineligible to hold.

Plaintiff faxed a copy of the complaint to Obama, the DNC and FEC on August

22, 2008 prior to the hearing on the TRO before this Honorable Court. Defendants were

further served by personal service on September 4, 2008. Neither the DNC nor Obama

have supplied any type of proof of Obama’s citizenship status and/or eligibility to serve

as President of the United States. Instead, they waited until the last hour and filed their

Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff has asked for a simple resolution. Plaintiff has asked that Obama supply

a genuine certified copy of his original long version “vault” Birth Certificate and a

certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance and/or Certificate of Citizenship. If in fact

Obama can prove his “natural born” citizenship status, which he cannot, then he has not

been prejudiced in anyway, but instead Plaintiff has been protected and his civil rights

secured. However, if Obama is unable to supply said documentation, then he needs to

withdrawal his candidacy, again which will eliminate Plaintiff’s deprivations and instill

Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected safeguards and rights.

There is absolutely no other way for Plaintiff to ensure his constitutionally

protected rights. The only option Plaintiff had was to bring this action. This is the first

time in American History a “naturalized” citizen and/or illegal alien have been allowed to

campaign for the Office of President of the United States. There are not any other ways

to establish or determine the legal status of our Presidential Candidates, whether

Republican and/or Democratic. The FEC and DNC have refused to verify and furnish

Plaintiff with Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof. Plaintiff has standing to challenge any

person(s) citizenship and/or nationality status pursuant to statute, 8 U.S. C. §1481(b).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not perform background checks

and/or verify their eligibility on our Candidates to hold Office. According to the FBI,

once a candidate is voted into Office of Congress, they are members of Congress and

therefore they are given a Secret Clearance, again, without any type of background check

and/or verification processes performed.

Plaintiff, as well as other Democratic voters have and are suffering the total loss

of confidence in the DNC primary process because of the massive cheating and

skewering of rules to make an illegitimate ineligible candidate the nominee in violation

of DNC rules and the Constitution, robbing voters of their voices and votes. Plaintiff and

millions of other Democratic voters have lost all trust in the integrity of the FEC and

Democratic Party leaders by the total failure of the DNC to perform the most basic of

functions by insisting any candidates produce basic documents in vetting their eligibility,

especially after there were repeated requests demanding Obama's eligibility be proven

with certified legitimate documents which had not been forged. This failure to perform

even the most basic of due diligence has shattered Plaintiff's faith, along with millions of

Democratic voters, in the Democratic system.

Plaintiff has been damaged financially for all monies donated, billable hours

spent supporting the Democratic candidates, taxes paid by Plaintiff which went to the

Secret Service for their protection of Obama for the past twenty (20) months and for the

financial costs and time expended of this litigation, when Defendants could have very

easily investigated, verified and obtained proof of Obama's eligibility to serve as

President of the United States, if in fact he is eligible.

Plaintiff has suffered damage to his reputation and discrimination as a result of

attempting to protect his rights and verify the eligibility of Obama to serve as President

of the United States. Plaintiff has been repeatedly called a racist and verbally assaulted

for bringing forward this lawsuit against Obama. Plaintiff is not a racist and is a paid

Life Member of the NAACP. Obama himself stated to a crowd of his supporters, "I

need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to

talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you

to argue with them and get in their face", see the newspaper article published in the San

Francisco Gate, by Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press Writer, on September 17,

2008, attached as EXHIBIT "5". Obama is promoting attacks on non-supporters,

which is creating racial tension and violence in our communities.

Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the verification and proof requested herein by

way of requests, filing this action, Admissions and Request for Production of Documents

served upon Defendants September 15, 2008 and by Subpoenas served upon agencies

who could supply the documentation to prove Obama’s citizenship status. To date,

Plaintiff has not received anything. Plaintiff has received two (2) letters from agencies

that were served with subpoenas claiming they need Obama’s signatures to comply

and/or the confidentiality of the documents were protected from disclosure to third

parties under 5 U.S. C. § 552. See EXHIBITS “6” and “7”.

B. THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION AS PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO BRING THE WITHIN

ACTION

The DNC and Obama have filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1), claiming this Court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction as Plaintiff lacks standing. This claim is inaccurate, as this Court does have

subject matter jurisdiction and has the inherent power to hear this case.

However, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint.

This case is easily distinguishable from Hollander v. McCain, 2008 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008), where the Court held that the Plaintiff did not have

standing based on the alleged harm he would suffer should McCain be elected President

despite his alleged lack of eligibility under the natural born citizenship clause, Art. II, §

1, cl. 4.

The factors used in the Court's decision were that: (1) McCain's candidacy for the

presidency, whatever his eligibility, was "hardly a restriction on voters' rights" because it

in no way prevented them from voting for somebody else in the primary election; and (2)

the harm claimed "standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of

all citizens in constitutional governance" (the Court citing Schlesinger v. Reservists

Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 217(1974); and (3) Plaintiff did not "allege

personal injury fairly traceable to the Defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct" (the Court

cited Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737(1984) at 751; and (4) McCain was "unquestionably

an American citizen."

In this case, (1) Obama's candidacy for the presidency in the general election as

opposed to the primary elections prevents citizens from voting for Hillary Clinton despite

her immense popularity; (2) the harm Plaintiff suffered is particular to him because he

has been denied the constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate; (3) Plaintiff's

claims are traceable to the Defendants' unlawful behavior in failing to disclose

information to which voters are entitled; and (4) Defendants have failed to show that Mr.

Obama is "unquestionably an American citizen."

Therefore, the factors used in Hollander v. McCain clearly favor Plaintiff's

standing.

1. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702

Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s

citizenship status, or lack thereof. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the

complaints and requests. In addition, Plaintiff has attempted to secure documents from

other locations, which are required to turn the documents over pursuant to FOIA,

however, once again has been refused. The DNC and FEC have failed to act in their

Official position and take the steps necessary to turn over the documents and institute a

proper investigation to protect Plaintiff.

5 United States Code §702



states:

“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected

or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to

judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than

money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof

acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be

dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or

that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a

defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United

States: Provided, that any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer

or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for

compliance. Nothing herein

(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the

court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or

equitable ground; or

(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to

suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”

The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of

Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million

Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.

2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to

[/LEFT]



FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)

[LEFT]Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s

citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility

status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and

requests.

2 United States Code, §437c (b)



states:

(b) Administration, enforcement, and formulation of policy; exclusive

jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions

with respect to elections for Federal office

(1) The Commission shall administer, seek to obtain compliance

with, and formulate policy with respect to, this Act and chapter

95



[/LEFT]



and chapter 96 of title 26. The Commission shall have

exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of

[LEFT]such provisions.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit, restrict, or

diminish any investigatory, informational, oversight,

supervisory, or disciplinary authority or function of the

Congress or any committee of the Congress with respect to

elections for Federal office.

2 United States Code § 437d. Powers of Commission



states in pertinent part:

(a) Specific authorities

The Commission has the power—

(1) to require by special or general orders, any person to submit, under oath,

such written reports and answers to questions as the Commission may

prescribe;

( 3) to require by subpoena, signed by the chairman or the vice chairman, the

attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all

documentary evidence relating to the execution of its duties;

(4) in any proceeding or investigation, to order testimony to be taken by

deposition before any person who is designated by the Commission and

has the power to administer oaths and, in such instances, to compel

testimony and the production of evidence in the same manner as

authorized under paragraph (3);

(9) to conduct investigations and hearings expeditiously, to encourage

voluntary compliance, and to report apparent violations to the appropriate

law enforcement authorities.

Plaintiff is a registered voter who has standing to seek Declaratory and Injunctive

Relief against the FEC, DNC and Obama pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §702. Plaintiff has a right,

which is secured to him by our laws and the United States Constitution, for verification

of our Presidential Nominee’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States prior

to the elections. Plaintiff as well as other Democratic individuals submitted complaints

to the DNC and the FEC, requesting verification of Obama’s citizenship status and

eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The FEC and DNC had a duty to

investigate Obama’s citizenship status, the fact Obama has refused to prove his eligibility

and obtained in excess of Four Hundred ($400) Million Dollars in Campaign Funds, is

based on a fraudulent scheme if Obama is unable to prove his “natural born” citizenship

status, 2 U.S.C. §437(g). The FEC is responsible for the administration, enforcement;

exclusive jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions with

respect to elections for Federal office, 2 U.S.C. §437c(b). (emphasis added)

Defendants’ refusals to perform said inquiry and provide proof of our Democratic

Presidential candidate’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States is in

violation of the very laws stated for Plaintiff and other’s citizens of the United States.

Obama, knowing he is not an eligible candidate to serve as President of the United States,

began campaigning for the Presidential seat. Obama’s campaign has brought in over

Four Hundred ($400) Million Dollars in donations based on a fraudulent campaign,

which has been allowed by the Defendants, the FEC and DNC. Plaintiff and other

democratic citizens brought the issues to the attention of the DNC and the (FEC) who

have refused to take any action to protect Plaintiff and/or all other democratic citizens,

which is in violation of the United States Laws outlined above. Plaintiff has demanded

proof of Obama’s eligibility, however to no avail. The DNC and the FEC have a duty to

investigate the issue and disclose the information ensuring Obama is eligible to campaign

and serve as President of the United States, to Plaintiff and the public, who are being

harmed by the fraudulent conduct of Obama, a Presidential Candidate and the DNC’s

Nominee.

When Congress confers standing on litigants, the generalized grievance

constriction does not apply. Congress confers standing on any individual who has been

aggrieved by the denial of information required to be furnished pursuant to Statute. It

matters not that most people are or will be entitled and suffer a “generalized grievance”,

the statutory entitlement is sufficient. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998).

FEC v. Akins



, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), held, in pertinent part:

“1. Respondents, as voters seeking information to which they believe FECA

entitles them, have standing to challenge the FEC’s decision not to bring an

enforcement action. Pp. 6-14………

(b) Respondents also satisfy constitutional standing requirements. Their

inability to obtain information that, they claim, FECA requires AIPAC to make

public meets the genuine "injury in fact" requirement that helps assure that the

court will adjudicate "[a] concrete, living contest between adversaries." Coleman

v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 460 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). United States v.

Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, distinguished. The fact that the harm at issue is widely

shared does not deprive Congress of constitutional power to authorize its

vindication in the federal courts where the harm is concrete. See Public Citizen v.

Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449-450. The informational injury here,

directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently

concrete. Respondents have also satisfied the remaining two constitutional

standing requirements: The harm asserted is "fairly traceable" to the FEC's

decision not to issue its complaint and the courts in this case can "redress" that

injury. Pp. 8-14.

FEC v. Akins



, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion. at p. 14) the Court stated:

“As commonly understood, the Federal Election Campaign Act seeks to remedy

any actual or perceived corruption of the political process in several important ways.”

FEC v. Akins



, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion. at p. 20) the Court stated:

“Given the language of the statute and the nature of the injury, we conclude that

Congress, intending to protect voters such as respondents from suffering the kind of

injury here at issue, intended to authorize this kind of suit. Consequently, respondents

satisfy "prudential" standing requirements. Cf. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3

(1997)”

FEC v. Akins



, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion at p.21) the Court stated:

“Indeed, this Court has previously held that a plaintiff suffers an "injury in fact"

when the plaintiff fails to obtain information which must be publicly disclosed pursuant

to a statute. Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (failure to

obtain information subject to disclosure under Federal Advisory Committee Act

"constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue"). See also Havens

Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373 -374 (1982) (deprivation of information

about housing availability constitutes "specific injury" permitting standing)”.

The United States Constitution Article VI states, “This Constitution, and the laws

of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or

which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of

the land……… The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of

the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United

States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this

Constitution.”

Furthermore, the Federal Elections Campaign Act [FECA] is supposed to protect

Plaintiff and other registered voters from the fraudulent schemes involved with Federal

Elections.

3. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to

[/LEFT]



8 U.S.C. §1481(b)

[LEFT]Further Standing is granted to Plaintiff under



8 U.S.C. §1481(b), which states:

“Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or

proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the

provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or

party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance

of the evidence…….”

Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact

Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status

when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,

Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he

would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which

is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain

any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States

nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of

eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.

Again



, as previously stated, since Obama’s birth was legally Acknowledged by

Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which

the evidence attached hereto supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears

the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would

have been required to file applications with the U.S. State Department and follow the

legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned

from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then

Obama is an illegal alien.

Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981 using his

Indonesian passport. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the

time of Obama’s travels, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama was required to

give affirmation of allegiance to Indonesia to secure his Indonesian Passport or in

renewing, which is required every five (5) years, his Indonesian passport and/or

traveling on said passport, Obama was giving affirmation or reaffirmation of allegiance

to Indonesia in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1). Taking an oath or making an

affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state...after having

attained the age of eighteen years provides loss of nationality by native born citizens, 8

USC §1481(a)(2).

Since Obama was acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro as his son and/or was adopted

by Lolo Soetoro and was a citizen of Indonesia, according to his school record attached

as Exhibit “4”, Obama is clearly an Indonesian citizen.

4. Plaintiff has Standing under

[/LEFT]



5 U.S.C. §552

[LEFT]Plaintiff has standing to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5

U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994). Anyone denied information under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994) has standing to sue regardless of

his or her reasons. Akins, Et Al. vs.. FEC, 322 US. App. D.C. 58; 101 F.3d 731; 1996

U.S. App. LEXIS 31253 (1996), 524 U.S. 11 (1998); Public Citizen vs. FTC, 276 U.S.

App. D.C. 222, 869 F.2d 1541(D.C. Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff has suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public;

the lack of information on Mr. Obama's citizenship, caused by the FEC's action, limited

the information available to him as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and

inform the public and policymakers. If a party is denied information that will help it in

making a voting decision that party is obviously injured in fact. In Akins, the court noted

that: "[a] voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes suffers a

particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just as a government

contractor, allegedly wrongfully deprived of information to be made available at the time

bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even if all other bidders also suffered an

injury." Even if all individuals who voted for any of the other Democratic candidates for

President, suffered the same injury that does not take away from the individual injury that

Plaintiff suffered.

5. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, Civil rights and Elective

Franchise

28 U.S.C. § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise states in pertinent part:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized

by law to be commenced by any person: ....

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity

secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress

providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of

the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of

Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.

Plaintiff has the right to secure equitable relief under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3) and

(4). In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), federal jurisdiction arose under this section and

Plaintiff had standing because his individual right to vote was affected. Like many other

United States citizens, Plaintiff lost the opportunity to vote in the general election for a

qualified Democratic candidate, because Obama withheld information critical to

determining his ineligibility for presidency, knowing he was not a “natural born” citizen

much less a citizen at all and knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the

United States. Based on Obama’s fraud, people supported him instead of an eligible

candidate.



[/LEFT]

[BTS]

Part 2:





6. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction

Congress has conferred upon federal courts jurisdiction to decide



federal

questions i.e., cases or controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the

[LEFT]United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

Article III



[/LEFT]



permits federal question jurisdiction in every case in which the laws of

the United States are an "ingredient" of the suit in question. Osborn v Bank of the United

[LEFT]States



[/LEFT]



, 22 US 738 (1824). Under Osborn's reading of Article III, federal question

jurisdiction can exist even if the federal ingredient never arises in the suit, or if it has

[LEFT]been already decided. "Congress may confer on the federal courts jurisdiction over every

case or controversy that might call for the application of federal law." Verlinden BV v

Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 US 480 (1983).

The issues presented in Plaintiff’s complaint clearly arise under the Constitution

and Laws of the United States, and are a Federal Question presented.

There are no laws which specifically delegate whose responsibility it is to carry

the burden of verifying the eligibility of a President. The question is who has the

constitutional authority to resolve disputes regarding presidential candidates’ eligibility?

Our Constitution and laws are in fact, silent on how questions of presidential candidates’

eligibility are resolved. The Constitution or our laws do not contain provisions on who is

to make determinations of the compliance of the presidential candidate with Article II,

much less that they have exclusive ability to do so. The closest we have is 2 U.S.C.

§437c, if in fact illegal or fraudulent campaigning is involved.

Moreover, there are absolutely no statutes or laws which dictates how a person,

such as Plaintiff, are to demand proof of our Presidential candidates eligibility in order

for Plaintiff to be able to form a proper decision on who to cast his vote for. Each entity

contacted, whether Governmental or State has refused such duties, including the DNC

and FEC. Again, the closest we have is 2 U.S.C. §437c, if in fact illegal or fraudulent

campaigning is involved.

This is the first time in History these Federal questions have been presented.

There is not any statutory reference or case law pertaining to such questions.

The Constitution guarantees forms of redress through our Court systems. This

very Court has the inherent power to hear and resolve the Federal questions presented.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United

States



[/LEFT]



. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government.

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable

[LEFT]Court to deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Order immediate discovery, including but

not limited to: 1) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth

Certificate; and (2) A certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and (3) A

certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama after attaining the age of

majority and allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint.

C. PLAINTIFF HAS PLED CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE RELIEF

CAN BE GRANTED.

Defendants claim Plaintiff has failed to state claim in which federal relief can be

granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint under Counts 1, 2 and 3 which clearly assert Obama was

born in Mombasa, Kenya and his mother was not old enough and did not meet the

residency requirements pursuant to The Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and

§301(a)(7) of the INA states the U.S. citizen parent, Obama’s mother, must have resided

in the U.S. for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14) in

order to give Obama “natural born” citizenship status in the United States. United States

of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88

(2d Cir.1998).

In order to determine Obama’s citizenship status, the Court must look to the

applicable law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth. Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782,

783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child

born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time

of the child’s birth”).

Additionally, Obama’s mother relocated Obama in or about 1967, when Obama

was approximately five (5) or six (6) years old, when she married Lolo Soetoro, an

Indonesian Citizen. At that time, Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. Obama’s

mother became naturalized in Indonesia and Obama, being a minor, followed his

mother’s nationality, Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b).

As stated above, Obama admits in his book “Dreams from my father” Obama’s

memoir (autobiography) that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, he and his

mother moved to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already

been enrolled in school located in Jakarta prior to his arrival. The only way this could

have occurred, is if in fact Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, acknowledged

Obama as his son, which acknowledgement was made prior to Obama’s eighteenth (18th)

birthday.

Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the

son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of

Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning

Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning

Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata)

(KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie). Republic of Indonesia Constitution

1945, as amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the

Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002,



[/LEFT]



Chapter X, Citizens and

Residents, Article 26 states “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples

[LEFT]and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance

with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living

in Indonesia.”

Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was adopted by his

Indonesian stepfather. Obama was registered in a public school Fransickus Assisi School

in Jakarta, Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, showing his citizenship as

Indonesian. The school registration is attached as EXHIBIT “4”. The law on the books

at that time did not allow foreign children to attend a public school in Jakarta. The

school obtained verification from the Government of the child’s name and citizenship

status.

Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states “It is stipulated that an adopted child has

the same status as a natural child and that his or her relationship to the birth parents is

severed by adoption.“

Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states: “on the condition of ratification of the

adoption by the District Court: “The law stipulates that children of mixed couples

automatically assume their father’s citizenship, and a divorced wife cannot take custody

of her children because they have different citizenship.”

Since Obama’s birth was legally Acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian

citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence attached hereto

supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia.

Dual citizenship was not allowed or permitted in Indonesia until the year 2006.

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride

(dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations, at the time in question, did not recognize

neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.

Indonesia did not allow Dual Citizenship or Dual Nationality; thus Obama is not a

U.S. Citizen, he is Indonesian. Neither Obama’s place of birth or the nationality of his

American parent are relevant, the Indonesian Law takes precedence under The Master

Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930. The United States

accepts the existence of Dual Nationality only if the other country does.



[/LEFT]



Hague

Conventions







are applied by the United States and this has been in effect since before

1930. (Memorandum on Nationality, including Statelessness: Document A/CN.4/67,

[LEFT]prepared by Ivan S Kerno, International Law Commission, United Nations General

Assembly, 6th April 1953.) Thus, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and my not even

be a naturalized citizen.

As a direct result of the Defendants actions, or lack thereof, Plaintiff’s civil rights

secured to him under the Fourteenth (14



[/LEFT]



th) Amendment of the United States Constitution

have been affected. Plaintiff has been deprived, as stated above, money, time, billable

[LEFT]hours and Liberty and has suffered reverse discrimination and violations of the Freedom

of Information Act.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require notice pleading, not fact pleading,

so to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Plaintiff “need only make out a claim upon

which relief can be granted. If more facts are necessary to resolve or clarify the disputed

issues, the parties may avail themselves of the civil discovery mechanisms under the

Federal Rules”. Alston v. Parker, 363 F. 3d 229, 233 n.6 (4d Cir. 2004), quoting

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.



, 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (“This simplified notice pleading

standard relies on liberal discovery rules…to define facts and issues and to dispose of

unmeritorious claims.”)

As this Court is aware, in deciding a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the factual allegations of the Complaint as

true and draws all reasonable inferences therefore in favor of the Plaintiff. Armstrong

Surgical Center, Inc. v. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital, 185 F.3d 154, 155 (3d

Cir. 1999), Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (4d Cir. 1997).

In making a determination, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party. Budinsky v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental

Resources, 819 F.2d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff brought this action prior to the Democratic National Committee in

attempts to have Obama removed from the ballot if he was found to be ineligible.

Unfortunately, Obama was nominated as the Democratic Nominee to run and serve for

the President of the United States. The relief sought in all three (3) Counts of Plaintiff’s

complaint request a Declaratory relief deeming Obama ineligible to serve as President of

the United States as he is not a “natural born” citizen pursuant to the United States

Constitution, Article II, Section I and Injunctive Relief removing Obama from the ballot

and stopping all of his campaign efforts to secure the Office of the Presidency.

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable

Court to deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss, order immediate discovery, including but

not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth

Certificate; and (2) a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and (3) a

certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of majority and

allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint.

D. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of

Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain

verification of Obama’s eligibility through Subpoenas to the Government entities and the

Hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiff has not received the requested discovery from

the Defendants and two (2) of the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused

to honor the subpoena.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants

Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery,

including but not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long

version) Birth Certificate; and (2) a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship;

and (3) a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of

majority. If the Court is inclined to grant Defendants motion, Plaintiff respectfully

requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint pursuant to the findings of this

Honorable Court.

Respectfully submitted,

/s Philip J. Berg

Dated: September 29, 2008 ___________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney in pro se

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

(610) 825-3134

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Opposition and Brief in

Support thereof, to Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National

Committee’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) was served via electronic filing on the ECF

System, this 29 day of September th 2008 upon the following:

John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esquire

Attorney I.D. PA 54279

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &

INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8603

(215) 864-9125 (Fax)

lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Joseph E. Sandler, Esquire

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC

300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102

Washington, D.C. 20003

Telephone: (202) 479-1111

Fax: (202) 479-1115

sandler@sandlerreiff.com

Robert F. Bauer, Esquire

General Counsel, Obama for America

PERKINS COIE

607 Fourteenth Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003

Telephone: (202) 628-6600

Facsimile: (202) 434-1690 Attorney’s for Defendant’s

RBauer@perkinscoie.com



[/LEFT]



Barack Hussein Obama and

The Democratic National Committee

[LEFT]The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

999 E. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463 In pro se

Served via regular mail postage fully prepaid

/s Philip J. Berg

Dated: September 29, 2008 ___________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney in pro se

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

(610) 825-3134



[/LEFT]

[Accountable]

Ridiculous. His mom's a citizen; he's a citizen. Now who's gonna pay me for the investigation?

[BTS]

Accountable;1013467 wrote: Ridiculous. His mom's a citizen; he's a citizen. Now who's gonna pay me for the investigation?


It's not that cut and dry Acc. If in fact, if he was born in Keyna and not Hawaii as he has stated then he is a Indonesian and not a US citizen no matter if his mother is a US citizen. Also this is the just of the case and I think it may pan out:





, as previously stated, since Obama’s birth was legally Acknowledged by

Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which



the evidence attached hereto supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears

the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would

have been required to file applications with the U.S. State Department and follow the

legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned

from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then

Obama is an illegal alien.

Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981 using his

Indonesian passport. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the

time of Obama’s travels, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama was required to

give affirmation of allegiance to Indonesia to secure his Indonesian Passport or in

renewing, which is required every five (5) years, his Indonesian passport and/or

traveling on said passport, Obama was giving affirmation or reaffirmation of allegiance

to Indonesia in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1). Taking an oath or making an

affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state...after having

attained the age of eighteen years provides loss of nationality by native born citizens, 8

USC §1481(a)(2).

Since Obama was acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro as his son and/or was adopted

by Lolo Soetoro and was a citizen of Indonesia, according to his school record attached

as Exhibit “4”, Obama is clearly an Indonesian citizen.

[yaaarrrgg]

BTS, this rumor is old and has already been debunked a while back.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html

[BTS]

yaaarrrgg;1014293 wrote: BTS, this rumor is old and has already been debunked a while back.



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html




How can it be debunked when it has yet to go to trial?

Your post was from Aug. 21st this link is from Sept. 3rd.

No it ain't going away..



http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/ ... president/

Mainstream media exposure has been understandably slow, he said, and when I asked whether he thought the deafening silence on the part of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and more could be a sign that this information was perhaps at the heart of the GOP’s “October Surprise,” his answer was simple.

“It could be. If so, it looks like I jumped the gun,” he said, reminding me that part of his motivation for filing suit when he did was to avoid the catastrophe for the Democratic Party which would inevitably occur should the GOP bring it up closer to Election Day.

[G-man]

Very interesting. It's hard to believe that he would've been allowed to go this far without anyone questioning it well beforehand, however.

[flopstock]

yaaarrrgg;1014293 wrote: BTS, this rumor is old and has already been debunked a while back.



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html




We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.


OMG where is NOMAD?:D:wah:

[Accountable]

BTS;1013927 wrote: It's not that cut and dry Acc. If in fact, if he was born in Keyna and not Hawaii as he has stated then he is a Indonesian and not a US citizen no matter if his mother is a US citizen. Also this is the just of the case and I think it may pan out:
Hmf. :-2 Whoduthunk that we still have such sexist laws on the books.

Seems that a child born to an American father and foreign mother can have citizenship if paternity is established before the kid turns 18. However, if the kid has an American mother and foreign father, no citizenship. :yh_think weird.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

[flopstock]

I really don't see the point to the lawsuit. If Obama is unable to serve... isn't that the point of having a vice president?:-2



Or is that just for miss america?:D

[Accountable]

flopstock;1014645 wrote: I really don't see the point to the lawsuit. If Obama is unable to serve... isn't that the point of having a vice president?:-2



Or is that just for miss america?:D
Hey! Maybe we should check McCain, too. :wah:

[yaaarrrgg]

BTS;1014549 wrote: How can it be debunked when it has yet to go to trial?

Your post was from Aug. 21st this link is from Sept. 3rd.

No it ain't going away...


The original suit was filed in August. By a Hillary supporter. The reason the mainstream media isn't touching this, is because it's old news. You've got to question the wisdom though of trying the same trick twice, knowing how the first time turned out. Might get a couple voters, but lose more who see through the silliness and desperation.

Why aren't McCain supporters talking about real issues? Like the economy?

[BTS]

yaaarrrgg;1014691 wrote: The original suit was filed in August. By a Hillary supporter. The reason the mainstream media isn't touching this, is because it's old news. You've got to question the wisdom though of trying the same trick twice, knowing how the first time turned out. Might get a couple voters, but lose more who see through the silliness and desperation.



Why aren't McCain supporters talking about real issues? Like the economy?


Kool...........Let's see how it all pans out.... but I think there is merit here.

Might even be mo interestin than the Florida debacle....:driving:

[yaaarrrgg]

What kind of evidence would count as proof? I googled an image to the document in one try ...



Someone with a name name like "Barack Hussein Obama" is unlikely to be lying about their name ... it's a horrible name. Like that old ad .. with a name like Smuckers, it's got to be good.

And another, from fact check.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/ ... cate_3.jpg

[spot]

The claim is, yaaarrrgg, that the physical document he's been using all these years is a forgery.

Assuming those BTS posts are genuine court documents then yes, it's great fun and if it's actually true then I agree he's ineligible to stand and it will be the event of the year. It's an odd way to get justice in the election but if it forces McCain into office then that's what it'll have done.

It does seem quite believable that he was born in Kenya, away from US soil, and that the under-19 rule is real, and that since he never applied by alternative available routes for citizenship he's not got it and can't now get it.

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;1014716 wrote: I want barry to allow the investigation and I want a court appointed investigator to verify the stamper of this document, and the document that he used to verify the certificate of verfication.

I want to be SURE 100% sure he is a Us Soil Born Citizen and elegiable per out constitution to be POTUS.

is that too much to ask?


He's let several people inspect the documents. It should be public record as well... at least the public notice.

You want to chew up all his time in court so he can't run a fair race? Why don't we do the same for McCain to make it fair. For all we know, he's a Manchurian candidate that was captured in East Asia, and programmed to destroy the U.S.

Maybe the burden of proof should be on the people making the claim that he's not American?

[BTS]

yaaarrrgg;1014708 wrote: What kind of evidence would count as proof? I googled an image to the document in one try ...







Someone with a name name like "Barack Hussein Obama" is unlikely to be lying about their name ... it's a horrible name. Like that old ad .. with a name like Smuckers, it's got to be good.



And another, from fact check.org:



http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/ ... cate_3.jpg


Like I say.............It seems to have merit and is not over yet.

Let's just waint and see what happens.





Philip J Berg lawsuit, Berg response to Obama motion, Internet rumor, Update from Mr. Berg



October 2, 2008 · 10 Comments



There was an internet rumor yesterday, October 1, 2008 that the judge had provided a ruling and that Obama had 3 days to provide proof of citizenship. We received an email from Philip J Berg late last night. Here is the official statement from Mr. Berg:

“Oct 1, 2008 11:25 PM

I just received an email from a blogger who states they received confirmation the order was signed and Obama was ordered to turn over his vault certificate within three (3) days. Attached to the email was a copy of our “Proposed” order which was filed as page one with our Opposition.

We have not received any order. The first page of our Opposition is a “proposed” order which we are required to complete. If the Judge agrees with our argument, which we of course hope he does, the order would then and only then be signed.

As of today’s date an Order has not been issued. The motions are still pending. I just want to clarify this as it has now streamed across the internet and it is not true, which may lead people to false hopes.

Thank you.

Phil”

Philip J Berg’s website:

http://obamacrimes.com

[spot]

Jester;1014723 wrote: And what is his legal name? This is all kind of crazy, but if he was adopted by his mothers second husband then he is not using his legal name.

He's a lawyer, or is he? Is that contract he signed valid as Barack Obama if his name is Barry Seatoe?


We don't have a concept of "legal name" in England, here we can call ourselves by any forename or surname we want to, we don't need to register it. What a person calls himself is his name, it's that simple. If he calls himself something with the intent to defraud then that's covered as just plain fraud. If he calls himself anything simply because he wants to then he can ask for a passport in that name and he'll get it. I suspect the rules will change in the next few years but for the time being it's as it's always been and it's nicely anarchic.

I know that has nothing to do with Senator Obama or US law, I just thought you'd like to know. Because it's such a fun fact.

[yaaarrrgg]

spot;1014719 wrote: The claim is, yaaarrrgg, that the physical document he's been using all these years is a forgery.

Assuming those BTS posts are genuine court documents then yes, it's great fun and if it's actually true then I agree he's ineligible to stand and it will be the event of the year. It's an odd way to get justice in the election but if it forces McCain into office then that's what it'll have done.

It does seem quite believable that he was born in Kenya, away from US soil, and that the under-19 rule is real, and that since he never applied by alternative available routes for citizenship he's not got it and can't now get it.


It's a conspiracy theory of course, so no amount of evidence will matter. You can't refute a conspiracy theory ... it's like a black hole that gobbles up all lack of evidence as evidence, and redefines all real evidence as non-evidence.

But with any conspiracy there is an equal and opposite conspiracy theory. Maybe the real conspiracy is directed against Obama to harm him in the election. How unlikely is it that one desperate, losing politician, would spread unfounded rumors about another?

What's more likely?

[spot]

yaaarrrgg;1014726 wrote: It's a conspiracy theory of course, so no amount of evidence will matter. You can't refute a conspiracy theory ... it's like a black hole that gobbles up all lack of evidence as evidence, and redefines all real evidence as non-evidence.

But with any conspiracy there is an equal and opposite conspiracy theory. Maybe the real conspiracy is directed against Obama to harm him in the election. How unlikely is it that one desperate, losing politician, would spread unfounded rumors about another?

What's more likely?


No, it's a court case. The only thing that will have any consequence is if the court finds in favour of the application.

[BTS]

spot;1014728 wrote: No, it's a court case. The only thing that will have any consequence is if the court finds in favour of the application.


Thanks spot..........there is a BIG difference between a conspiracy theory and a law suit.

[yaaarrrgg]

BTS;1014733 wrote: Thanks spot..........there is a BIG difference between a conspiracy theory and a law suit.


The basis of the lawsuit is a conspiracy theory. Prove to me that you are a citizen. And I'm suing you until you prove it. if you don't bend to my demands, that's further proof you are hiding something. You don't see the quackery of all this? If not, send me your original birth certificate... .

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;1014731 wrote: So why is he dodging it and not providing proof or going along with an investigation?


You mean give this quack a spotlight by cooperating with his demands?

[yaaarrrgg]

Boy it's a good thing for McCain that no one is talking about the economy :wah:

[spot]

BTS;1014733 wrote: Thanks spot..........there is a BIG difference between a conspiracy theory and a law suit.


The fact to be determined is very simple. Which country was he actually born in?

There'll be witnesses galore, it's not that long ago. Was he flown into Hawaii from Kenya born or was he awaiting birth? Was the birth registration in Hawaii made at the time or is it a back-dated fraud? If it was made at the time, was the birth registration in Hawaii truthful or untruthful when it described his birthplace? Those are the three testable subsidiary questions and witnesses will undoubtedly exist to answer all three of them. The proven answers to those three will allow the main fact to be deduced. There might even be witnesses to the birth or to the flight to Hawaii.

One can assume one way or another on all three questions but it makes no difference until someone tests the evidence in court and gives a verdict based on reality. Why guess? What point is there in guessing? How can a guess help anyone?

[yaaarrrgg]

The funny thing about this whole discussion is that McCain was actually the one born outside the U.S. ... he was born in Panama. The Constitution says the person must be "natural born," which may mean within the perimeter of U.S. territory. We might as well just throw in a supreme court case while we're at it for McCain... but the news looks worse for him:



In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/po ... ccain.html

So much for democracy ... the new motto might as well be "If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again."

[spot]

yaaarrrgg;1014757 wrote: The Constitution says the person must be "natural born," Shall we be sufficiently specific?

"natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

We're well past the point where the Constitution was adopted, so the term "Citizen of the United States" which allowed any citizen at the time of the handover to become President has long since become redundant. All that's left is "natural born Citizen". I've always taken that to mean anyone who's a Citizen excluding people born by Caesarian Section. I'm sure McCain's a Citizen. If Senator Obama's birth registration was fraudulent I'm not at all sure that he is though.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1014757 wrote: The funny thing about this whole discussion is that McCain was actually the one born outside the U.S. ... he was born in Panama. The Constitution says the person must be "natural born," which may mean within the perimeter of U.S. territory. We might as well just throw in a supreme court case while we're at it for McCain... but the news looks worse for him:







http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/po ... ccain.html



So much for democracy ... the new motto might as well be "If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again."
My history, she is no so goood. Was Panama US territory back then? Doesn't really matter. McCain is a citizen from birth. His parents were/are both citizens, and his father was military, serving overseas in service to his country. If little Johnny was born on a military installation or in a military hospital he's considered born on American soil.

yaaarrrgg;1014736 wrote: Boy it's a good thing for McCain that no one is talking about the economy :wah:The economy's got them both stained. I don't know why McCain's not making more hay with the stat that Obama's number 2 on the list of most contributions received from Fanny Mac, especially since the number 1 guy took over 20 years to make his pile and Obama got his in less than 1000 days.



Ron Paul missed his chance. He might've stolen the election with an "I told you so" campaign.

[BTS]

yaaarrrgg;1014734 wrote: The basis of the lawsuit is a conspiracy theory. Prove to me that you are a citizen. And I'm suing you until you prove it. if you don't bend to my demands, that's further proof you are hiding something. You don't see the quackery of all this? If not, send me your original birth certificate... .


Ever try to get a hazmat endorsment for a CDL? The documents and qualifications the DMV requires is a week long process. Now I (a citizen) expect that whoever runs for the office of president should have to do the same as me. If he did denounce his citizenship at a point in his life then by LAW he is not a fellow citizen, or is he?



Time will tell.

[BTS]

yaaarrrgg;1014757 wrote: The funny thing about this whole discussion is that McCain was actually the one born outside the U.S. ... he was born in Panama. The Constitution says the person must be "natural born," which may mean within the perimeter of U.S. territory. We might as well just throw in a supreme court case while we're at it for McCain... but the news looks worse for him:







http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/po ... ccain.html



So much for democracy ... the new motto might as well be "If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again."




Who is doing the sueing here? Is it not a fellow demo=rat?



Gee I wonder why he (McCain) was in Panama? Could it be his father was there serving in the Navy?

[yaaarrrgg]

BTS;1015130 wrote: Who is doing the sueing here? Is it not a fellow demo=rat?



Gee I wonder why he (McCain) was in Panama? Could it be his father was there serving in the Navy?


The real election was between Hillary and Obama. McCain is politically irrelevant ... the rest of this race is just theatrics. The upside is that this is the closest we've ever had to a three party election.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1014969 wrote: My history, she is no so goood. Was Panama US territory back then? Doesn't really matter. McCain is a citizen from birth. His parents were/are both citizens, and his father was military, serving overseas in service to his country. If little Johnny was born on a military installation or in a military hospital he's considered born on American soil.

The economy's got them both stained. I don't know why McCain's not making more hay with the stat that Obama's number 2 on the list of most contributions received from Fanny Mac, especially since the number 1 guy took over 20 years to make his pile and Obama got his in less than 1000 days.



Ron Paul missed his chance. He might've stolen the election with an "I told you so" campaign.


Ron Paul is interesting ... I wish he won the Republican primary.

On McCain, I don't think people in the U.S. territory are necessarily eligible (like Puerto Rico). The law that granted McCain full citizenship was passed a year after he was born. It granted him citizenship retroactively, but it's not necessarily "natural born" citizenship. So, technically, if the Democrats wanted to get desperate they could have played that card. The difference in tone though though, Hillary and Obama both sponsored a non-binding bill that declared McCain eligible for the office of presidency ... making the whole issue a non-issue for McCain.

On Fannie May, I saw some fact checking that said McCain's stats on finance contributions were misleading ... that most these contributions were from low level Fannie Mae workers. Meanwhile, a couple of top advisers for McCain worked for them. One guy on McCain's team was still receiving $15,000/month as recently as a couple months ago. His campaign is stocked full of lobbyists.

[BTS]

yaaarrrgg;1015189 wrote: Ron Paul is interesting ... I wish he won the Republican primary.



On McCain, I don't think people in the U.S. territory are necessarily eligible (like Puerto Rico). The law that granted McCain full citizenship was passed a year after he was born. It granted him citizenship retroactively, but it's not necessarily "natural born" citizenship. So, technically, if the Democrats wanted to get desperate they could have played that card. The difference in tone though though, Hillary and Obama both sponsored a non-binding bill that declared McCain eligible for the office of presidency ... making the whole issue a non-issue for McCain.



On Fannie May, I saw some fact checking that said McCain's stats on finance contributions were misleading ... that most these contributions were from low level Fannie Mae workers. Meanwhile, a couple of top advisers for McCain worked for them. One guy on McCain's team was still receiving $15,000/month as recently as a couple months ago. His campaign is stocked full of lobbyists.


Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... bama_n.htm

[Nomad]

[Oscar Namechange]

You American guys ..... Really!! Anything for a conspiricy eh??? :wah:

So i can still get away with calling him Ali barry Bingo then???

[Accountable]

Ali Barry :yh_drool

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;1020907 wrote: Ali Barry :yh_drool










At least she's got something for the guys to look at. Ali Obama just looks like a car with the back doors wide open. :rolleyes:

[Joe Plumber]

The thought plickens,

Obama did not respond to the lawsuit and this is where it is now:



Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President

Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President

For Immediate Release: - 10/21/08 - Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - 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 today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

OBAMA - Admitted:

1. I was born in Kenya.

2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen.

3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.

4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.

5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.

6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.

7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.

8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.

9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.

10. I was not born in Hawaii.

11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.

12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.

13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.

14. I am a citizen of Indonesia.

15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.

16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen.

17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.

18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.

19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.

20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.

21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.

22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.

23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.

24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen.

25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.

26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.

33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.

34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.

35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.

36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.

39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.

40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.

41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.

42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.

43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.

44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.

45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.

46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.

47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.

48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.

49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.

50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.

52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.

53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.

54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.

55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.

56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.

DNC - Admitted:

1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.

2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.

3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.

4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.

6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.

7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.

8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.



9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.

10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.



11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.

12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.

13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.

14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.

15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.

16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.

17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.

18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.

19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.

21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.

22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.

23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.

25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.

26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.

27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it



Attachments: File Description File size

Motion for Expedited Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Order re Req. for Admissi 67 Kb

Obama, Motion for Order deeming Request for Admissions Admitted.pdf 227 Kb

Press Release Obama - DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit. 85 Kb

[wildhorses]

yaaarrrgg;1014708 wrote: What kind of evidence would count as proof? I googled an image to the document in one try ...



Someone with a name name like "Barack Hussein Obama" is unlikely to be lying about their name ... it's a horrible name. Like that old ad .. with a name like Smuckers, it's got to be good.

And another, from fact check.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/ ... cate_3.jpg


At the bottom of the certificate it says "Any alterations invalidate this certificate".

And at the top right hand corner I see the record number is blocked out.....that is an alteration. So this particular copy is not valid.

[spot]

wildhorses;1030373 wrote: At the bottom of the certificate it says "Any alterations invalidate this certificate".

And at the top right hand corner I see the record number is blocked out.....that is an alteration. So this particular copy is not valid.


You really think the record number's blocked out on the certificate, and not just on the picture put up on the web?

You're barking mad, the whole lot of you.

Here, this is all about the folly of rumor and deliberate lying: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 71_pf.html

[wildhorses]

spot;1030377 wrote: You really think the record number's blocked out on the certificate, and not just on the picture put up on the web?

You're barking mad, the whole lot of you.

Here, this is all about the folly of rumor and deliberate lying: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 71_pf.html


It is not a valid replica with the number blocked out. Why is it blocked out? What would be the purpose of that? This internet image is not valid. Obama has no valid certificate number. If he did it would be included.