Second Berg Lawsuit Shifts the Burden of Proof to Soetoro (a.k.a. Obama)

I have always believed that the “burden of proof” for Presidential eligibility rests on the candidate, not anyone else.  In my opinion, it’s not a matter of “innocent until proven guilty”, it’s a matter of “ineligible until proven eligible”.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to prove that they are eligible.

However, I am not an attorney.  Berg, who is an attorney, has now filed a second lawsuit that clearly and legally shifts the burden of proof to Soetoro (a.k.a. Obama):

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 which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel.

Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.

The suit is in the nature of an Interpleader that shifts the burden of proof to the Defendants, Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden to show that they are “qualified” for office.

Back to the concept of “ineligible until proven eligible” and it being the candidate’s responsibility to prove that they are eligible, Obama has not only failed to prove he is eligible, he has proven that he is ineligible. He is not a natural born citizen because he openly admits that he was not “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. He openly admits that “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Second Berg Lawsuit Shifts the Burden of Proof to Soetoro (a.k.a. Obama)

  1. Ted says:

    Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

  2. I’m sorry, but given that Philip Berg also believes in the 9/11 “Truth” conspiracy theory, I think his credibility is rather shot. I’m with Michelle Malkin on this one; I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. Much as I hate to admit it, he is a US citizen, and he is going to be our next President. Hopefully, when 2012 rolls around, America will kick him out and replace him with someone who actually deserves the office. Like Bobby Jindal, or Mitt Romney, or even Sarah Palin.

  3. Ted,
    I agree with what you’ve written, but in regards to #4, the Supreme Court won’t have to step in if the Senators and Representatives in Congress uphold their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is a process for them to follow to submit an objection to the Electoral College vote.

    If the Congress fails to uphold their sworn oath, and certifies the vote for Obama without fulfiling their duty to qualify the candidate (a duty that is implied in the language of the 20th Amendment) and ensure that the candidate is a natural born citizen, then the Supreme Court will have to step in if our Constitution is to be supported and defended.

    An interesting sidenote to #7 is that if any elector voted for someone unexpected for President (for example Mike Huckabee instead of John McCain, or Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama), then that candidate could become the next President, even if both Obama and McCain are deemed ineligible. If it goes back to the electors, Obama’s electors will vote for whoever Obama tells them to vote for. If it goes to the Congress, then the Clinton/Obama battle for control rages on…

    No matter what, we are facing a Constitutional Crisis, and Obama has only himself to blame.

  4. Vaultenblogger,
    If Obama was born in Hawaii, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., then he was born a dual citizen (USA and British citizenship), not a natural born citizen.

    If Obama was born in Kenya, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., then he was born a British citizen only (becuase his mother was 18, and Hawaiian law at the time required that she be 19 (residing in Hawaii for five years after the age of 14) in order to pass US citizenship to her son).

    Either way he is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of all of our Armed Forces.

    It has nothing to do with whether or not Berg is 9/11 truther. Although, if you are interested in a different “9/11″ truth, read this.

  5. Actually, if Obama was born here, in Hawaii, than he’s a natural born citizen regardless. The Fourteenth Amendment states, “”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The end.
    And it’s certain that Obama was born in Hawaii, because setting the certificate stuff aside, the Honolulu Advertiser in 1961 printed a birth announcement congratulating the Obamas. Unless you think that four decades ago the Advertiser decided to get involved in a conspiracy with the Obamas to make up Barack’s citizenship on the off-chance that he might get elected President in 2008, then, really, there’s no doubt that Obama is a legitimate citizen. I dislike him as much as you do, but I’d rather oppose him based on solid facts and issues, not conspiracy theories.
    And, yes, Berg’s 9/11 truthiness does have to do with it, because it speaks to his credibility. Why should we believe him about Obama’s birth certificate when he can’t get the facts right about 9/11?

  6. Ted says:

    Vaultenblogger, whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is absoultely irrelevant insofar as being a “natural born citizen” SINCE HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN/BRITISH CITIZEN when BHO was born. Obama could have been born in the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, and he would not be a “natural born citizen” if his father was a Kenyan/British citizen, not an American citizen, when BHO was born. AND OBAMA’S OWN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE STATES JUST THAT, that his father was Kenyan/British when BHO was born.

    CASE CLOSED. Summary Judgment (no need for hearing or fact finding by the Supreme Court).

  7. Vaultenblogger,
    “Natural born citizens” and “citizens” are not equivalent concepts. The first group is a subset of the second group. The 14th Amendment only addresses who is part of the second group, and does nothing to modify the natural law definition of the first group.

    Obama was born with British citizenship, because of his father, and Obama himself acknowledges that. It is not in dispute at all. And that British citizenship disqualifies him from the first group (“natural born citizens”) and from the Presidency.

    The 14th Amendment may make Obama a citizen (if he was born in Hawaii), but the 14th Amendment does not and can not make Obama a natural born citizen.

  8. “Native born” deals only with location of birth.

    “Natural born” deals with Natural Law, which includes both location of birth and citizenship of parents.

    “Natural born citizens” are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

    Obama can be a “Native born” citizen without being a “Natural born citizen”. He may or may not be a “Native born” citizen, but he is without a doubt NOT a “Natural born” citizen.

  9. Ryan says:

    Pill, you and others have completely made up this “natural born citizen” garbage. A person born in the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of his or her parents’ citizenship. There’s nothing in the constitution that differentiates from the two concepts, and the presidential eligibility clause makes it very clear that a person must only be born in the United States.

    If what you believe is true, and Obama is on a lifelong Jihad against the US which will soon culminate in him becoming president, and making the country Muslim with some sort of “muslim dust”, then why would he admin to being a British subject at birth. According to you, he has lied about everything in his life since birth, made up all records of everything he has done, and convinced everyone who has ever met him to lie about it. If this is true (and it isn’t for the record), then why would he not just go the whole mile, and lie about his father’s citizenship? He could say that his dad was Ray Charles, and be done with it.

  10. Ryan,

    FAIL.

    I didn’t make up “natural born citizen” or Natural Law, to which it refers. I didn’t make up
    THE LAW OF NATIONS
    OR
    PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

    This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

    The constitution differentiates between citizen and natural born citizen in Article II section 1:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    If there was no difference between “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen“, then there was no need for the grandfather clause. But there is a difference, and the grandfather clause was needed. The absolute earliest possible date for there to be a thirty-five year old natural born citizen of the United States was July 4, 1811. Without the grandfather clause, no one would have been eligible to be President when the constitution was ratified in 1787. That is why the requirement was lowered from “natural born citizen” to just “citizen”, but only for those who were a citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution (1787). If you weren’t a citizen when the Constitution was adopted/ratified, then you weren’t covered by the grandfather clause and had to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to be President.

    You assume “natural born citizen” means born in the United States. You are wrong. That scenario describes a “Native born citizen” but is insufficient to make someone a “Natural born citizen”. “Natural born citizen” means “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. Follow that link and read the quotes from Book 1, sections 212 and 215 of
    THE LAW OF NATIONS
    OR
    PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

    Obama could have been born in the Oval Office and he’s still ineligible to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all of our Armed Forces. His birth location cannot change the undisputed fact that his father had British citizenship and passed that British citizenship on to him at his birth. By the Law of Nature (Natural Law), Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

    I didn’t make any of that up, and Ryan, once again, you FAIL.

  11. Ryan says:

    Natural born citizen means “born in the US”. Citizen means born in the US, naturalized as a US citizen, or granted citizenship due to parental citizenship.

    Linking to other blog posts by YOU does not verify your claim. Where is the term “Native born citizen” in the constitution? The grandfather clause you refer to was put in place because when the country was formed, the only people who were natural born citizens of the country were CHILDREN.

    Why should his father’s citizenship matter? What if he did not know who his father was? Does that make him ineligible? What if he was adopted? Does the constitution declare that the citizenship of the parents of presidential candidates be determined in some way?

    Answer all those questions and back up your answers with reputable sources. If you think the supreme court is going to step in and invalidate Obama, then the answers should come easily.

  12. Read my linked post. In it, I have provided primary source links to books which were read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. THE LAW OF NATIONS, written in 1758, clearly states:

    natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens… By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular

    Where is your primary source documentation to support your assertion that Natural born citizen means “born in the US”?

  13. Ryan says:

    My primary source document is the Constitution. I’m sure you can find a link to it somewhere. It doesn’t matter what books the nation’s founders read before writing the constitution. If they didn’t write it down, then the interpretation is up to the Supreme Court.

    And you didn’t answer my questions. What is the status of a person born in the US for whom the father’s citizen status is unknown?

  14. Ryan,

    The word “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to “Natural law”. “Natural born citizens” are a subset of “native born citizens”, which are a subset of “citizens”. The 14th Amendment discusses “citizens” but does nothing to diminish the Presidential eligibility requirement of “natural born citizen”

    Your goal is to waste my time. I will answer your last question, and then I am done with you. The status of a person born in the US for whom the father’s citizen status is unknown is native born citizen. They are not a natural born citizen unless both parents are known to be citizens.

  15. stophate says:

    Don’t you think Hillary Clinton or the Republicans would have raised this issue if there was a grain of truth to it ? The people that are promoting this story are hucksters and the people that believe it lack common sense.

  16. stophate,

    First, about your name “stop hate”, this isn’t about hate. It’s about honesty.

    Obama promised to be the most open and transparent in history.

    If he keeps his original birth certificate hidden, then he is outed as a LIAR.

    Kind of like promising to keep lobbyists out of his administration, and then nominating lobbyists to his administration…

    …and then refusing to answer a question about how he reconciles that.

    Or, nominating a tax cheat to lead the IRS.

    That’s not change we can believe in.

  17. stophate says:

    I’m sorry you are bitter you’re candidate didn’t win. Perhaps you shouldn’t have taken directions from Rush Limbaugh. Better luck next time, like a couple of generations from now when the people have forgotten how conservatives almost destroyed our country.

  18. I’m sorry your candidate is an illegible fraud. The truth will out.

    “how conservatives almost destroyed our country”?

    Conservatives birthed this country and the freedoms you enjoy.

    Conservatives brought this country back to life after Jimmy Carter nearly killed it.

    Barack Obama is worse than Carter.

    Conservatives are the only hope this country has to prevent a complete and total CHANGE to Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism under Obama.

  19. stophate says:

    The conservatives had 8 years and failed miserably. Haven’t you heard ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s