From your wiki link, STOOGE!
en.wikipedia.org
Federal courts[edit]
Berg v. ObamaOn August 21, 2008, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat[143] and former deputy state attorney general, filed a complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child.[144][145][146] He alleged that the "Certification of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery.[147] U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."[143][148]
Bypassing the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the United States Supreme Court. On December 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Berg's request for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15.[149] On December 15, 2008, the petitioner refiled the application for injunction.[150] Two days later, Berg's appeal was denied without comment by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.[146] Berg's previously denied request for an injunction was refiled with Justice Antonin Scalia on December 18, 2008.[150] On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009.[150]
On November 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Berg lacked standing.[151]
[edit] Kerchner v. ObamaAttorney Mario Apuzzo, on behalf of Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs, sued Obama, the U.S. Congress, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi in January 2009 alleging Obama was ineligible to be president, and that Congress failed to verify Obama's ineligibility. A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing. On July 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Berg v. Obama, affirmed the dismissal, and ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous lawsuit.[152] Apuzzo's subsequent request for a hearing was denied, but the order to show cause was discharged.[153][154] On November 29, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[155]
[edit] Barnett v. ObamaOn the afternoon of January 20, 2009, Orly Taitz filed a lawsuit in federal court, Alan Keyes et al v. Barack H. Obama et al against Obama, with Wiley Drake as one of the named parties.[156] On July 13, 2009, the presiding judge dismissed the case without prejudice on technical grounds,[157] and on July 14, 2009, Taitz refiled a "First Amended Complaint" Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama[158] on behalf of Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Cynthia Davis, Gail Lightfoot, several other local politicians, and various armed service members. Taitz sought a declaratory judgment that Obama is ineligible for office and an injunction to void his actions and appointments as President.[159]
Two of the plaintiffs, Markham Robinson and Wiley S Drake, subsequently attempted to dismiss their attorney, Orly Taitz, who refused to sign their substitution-of-attorney documents and instead filed to dismiss the two of them as plaintiffs in the case. On September 8, 2009, Judge David O. Carter denied the dismissal of Drake and Robinson as plaintiffs, and granted their motion to substitute Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation as counsel for them, refused to dismiss Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato from the case, and set a tentative trial date for January 26, 2010.[160]
At a hearing on October 5, 2009, Carter considered the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and declined to rule from the bench, saying that he would take the matter under advisement.[161] On October 7, 2009, he released a Minute Order finalizing the previously tentative dates for summary judgment motions and trial,[162] and on October 29, 2009, he dismissed the case.[163] The case is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[164]
[edit] Hollister v. SoetoroOn March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[165] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[152] On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[166]
[edit] Cook v. GoodOn February 1, 2009, Stefan F. Cook, a Major in the United States Army Reserve, contacted Taitz via e-mail, asking to be part of her lawsuit. On May 8, he volunteered to serve for one year in Afghanistan beginning on July 15, 2009.[167] The Army accepted his offer and ordered him to report on that date.[167] On July 8, however, he filed suit, with Taitz as his lawyer, seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector, arguing that his deployment orders were invalid because Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.[168] His orders were thereupon revoked; an Army spokesperson stated, "A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty."[167] Accordingly, Cook's case was dismissed as moot on July 16.[169][170]
In the lawsuit, captioned Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good and filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Cook asserted that he "would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President's command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties."[168] In April, before Cook volunteered for deployment to Afghanistan, he had been included in Taitz's list of people she said she represented as plaintiffs, in a letter raising the citizenship issue.[171] A retired Army major general and an active reserve US Air Force lieutenant colonel subsequently joined the Georgia case as plaintiffs alongside Cook. Cook's deployment orders were canceled, and a government spokesman explained, "The Commanding General of SOCCENT (U.S. Special Operations Central Command) has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders."[106] An Army CENTCOM spokesman rejected as false claims that the revocation validated Cook's claims: "This in no way validates any of the outlandish claims made by Maj. Cook or his attorney. The idea that this validates those charges about the president's fitness for office is simply false."[172]
After the case was filed, Taitz alleged that Cook had been terminated from his civilian job with a defense contractor, after the situation at his company had become "nutty and crazy".[173]
Cook received significant media coverage on July 16, 2009, from Fox News's Sean Hannity.[167][174][175][176][177] Hannity said in his second of two reports:
We told you Tuesday about an Army reserve soldier who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds that President Obama has not proven he is a U.S. citizen. Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who was supposed to deploy to Afghanistan in the coming days, has had his orders revoked. According to his lawyer, "They just said 'order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons. Just revoked." Major Cook and his lawyer expressed joy at this outcome and took it as an admission on the part of the military that the president is not in fact a legitimate citizen by birth.[175][176]
Hannity was criticized for publicizing the "birthers" movement.[176][177] News Hounds wrote:
Fox News had added legitimacy to the irrational and baseless conspiracy-theorist "birthers" who continue to insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and [is] thus an illegitimate president. One such effort came from Sean Hannity, reporting on a soldier challenging his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama is not eligible to be president. Hannity had failed to note in his report the availability of Obama's birth certificate and how the birther claims have been completely investigated and debunked. Hannity gave an update to the Afghanistan story last night (7/15/09) and took it a step further by suggesting, along with the plaintiff, that the subsequent revocation of the soldiers [sic] deployment orders indicated that his allegations were proved true. But Hannity omitted key details that point to a scam by the soldier. ... Had Hannity bothered to do the simplest of Google searches, he would have also uncovered this key piece of information from that day's Georgia Ledger-Enquirer [sic] newspaper.... So, Maj. Cook filed a request to serve the Commander-in-Chief in Afghanistan on May 8, well after Obama had assumed the presidency, but now, about two months later, is claiming that Obama is not qualified to be president. And instead of going through the administrative process to revoke his orders, which would seem to be a pro forma matter, he sued in federal court.
—News Hounds,[176] citing The Ledger-Enquirer[167]
After the lawsuit was reported in the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, the newspaper reported receiving "the highest volume of traffic ever by a single story in the history of ledger-enquirer.com, including written threats against the newspaper", with nearly half a million new readers and hundreds of e-mails. The threats prompted an increase in security around the courthouse where Cook's case was heard, as well as precautions being taken to protect the author of the newspaper's reports on the case. Executive Editor Ben Holden noted: "The chatter had the feel of a righteous cause – almost a religious cause – because some people hate this president."[178]
[edit] Rhodes v. MacdonaldIn September 2009, Taitz, on behalf of Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician, sought a restraining order to stop Rhodes' forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Land (the same judge who heard Cook v. Good) rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous.[179]
Within hours of Land's decision, Taitz told the news site Talking Points Memo that she felt Land's refusal to hear her case was an act of treason.[180] Two days later, she filed a motion to stay Rhodes' deployment pending rehearing of the dismissal order. She repeated her treason allegations against Land and made several other intemperate statements, including claims that Land was aiding and abetting purported aspirations of "dictatorship" by Obama.[181] Land rejected the motion as frivolous and ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process.[182]
A few hours later, a letter bearing Rhodes's signature arrived, stating that Taitz filed the motion without her knowledge or consent, asking Land to remove Taitz as her attorney of record in the case, and stating that it was her "plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to [Taitz's] reprehensible and unprofessional actions."[183] On September 26, 2009, Taitz filed a motion with the court seeking to withdraw as counsel for Rhodes, so she could divulge in court "privileged attorney-client communications" since the dismissed Rhodes case "is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment."[184]
On October 13, 2009, Judge Clay Land ordered "Counsel Orly Taitz ... to pay $20,000 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk's Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Land's decision stated:
The Court finds that counsel's conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel's pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court's show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.[185]
Upon learning of Land's ruling, Taitz said she would appeal the sanction, declaring that Judge Land was "scared to go against the regime" of the "oppressive" Obama administration, and that the sanction was an attempt to "intimidate" her.[186] On March 15, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions against Taitz.[187] On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[188]
[edit] State courts[edit]
Martin v. LingleOn October 17, 2008, another lawsuit was filed in a state circuit court of Hawaii[42] by Andy Martin, who was earlier declared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to be a "notoriously vexatious and vindictive litigator who has long abused the American legal system", and who uses lawsuits as "a cruel and effective weapon against his enemies."[189]
Martin's lawsuit sought to order the state to release a copy of Sen. Obama's long-form birth certificate.[42] The short-form birth certificate that the Obama campaign posted online states his place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii.[42] Martin's lawsuit claimed that because Martin "strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct thorough research", he should have a copy of Obama's birth certificate from the state and not a certificate "posted on a Web site". Under Hawaii law, only the person whom the record is concerned with, or a spouse, parents, descendant or someone with a common ancestor, or someone acting on behalf of such a person can obtain a copy of a vital record.
The court denied Martin's petition, saying that Martin lacked "a direct and tangible interest in the record."[190] The court cited Martin's lack of legal standing to obtain another person's birth document.[191]
[edit] Donofrio v. WellsIn October 2008, Leo Donofrio, an attorney from New Jersey, filed suit to challenge the eligibility of Obama, Republican presidential candidate John McCain (see details here) and the Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero.[8] Donofrio asserted that all three candidates were ineligible: Obama due to having dual U.S. and British nationality at birth (the latter via Obama's father), McCain due to being born in the Panama Canal Zone, and Calero due to allegedly still having Nicaraguan citizenship.[58]
Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born outside Hawaii.[192] Also, Donofrio did not challenge the fact that Obama is a U.S. citizen and instead challenged only whether Obama is a natural-born citizen.[193]
The case was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court on December 8, 2008, the Court declined without comment to hear the case.[58]
[edit] Wrotnowski v. BysiewiczOn October 31, 2008, Greenwich resident and health-food-store owner Cort Wrotnowski filed a suit in the Connecticut Supreme Court challenging the authenticity of presidential candidate Obama's Hawaii birth certificate. The suit was dismissed after initial hearings.[194]
Wrotnowski appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 25,[195] contending that the British citizenship of Obama's father made the president-elect ineligible to assume office. Leo Donofrio, whose earlier case against Obama's eligibility had been turned down, assisted Wrotnowski's Supreme Court appeal.[196] The request for stay or injunction was denied without comment on December 15, 2008.[195][197] Thomas Goldstein, who has argued numerous cases before the court and covers Supreme Court cases, commented that "The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen. And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother".[197]
[edit] Keyes v. BowenAlan Keyes and Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party and a California candidate for president elector, filed a lawsuit on November 14, 2008, requesting that Obama provide documentation that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.[198][199][200][201] Keyes also said in an interview that he would not be in favor of amending this requirement of the Constitution.[202] Keyes asserts that statements by Obama's paternal step-grandmother "raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president."[70][203][204]
California Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny sustained, without leave to amend, Secretary Bowen's and Obama's demurrers on Keyes' petition for writ of mandate and granted Obama's motion to quash the subpoena. Keyes was found not to be entitled to the records he sought, thereby declaring the case moot.[205][206] The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal on October 25, 2010.[207] The California Supreme Court declined, without comment, to review the case on February 2, 2011.[208]
[edit] Ankeny v. Governor of the State of IndianaIn December 2008, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition" against the Governor of Indiana to block "any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic]." A hearing was held, and on March 16, 2009, the Governor's motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld it on November 12, 2009.[209]
The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama's eligibility was affected by his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that "ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."[210]
[edit] Indictment attempts using "citizen grand juries"Some campaigners, led by Georgia activist Carl Swensson, have sought to "finally expose the conspiracy behind President Obama's birth certificate" by forming what they term "citizen grand juries" to indict Obama.[211] The "grand juries" are based on the Fifth Amendment's premise that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury". Although the activists managed to hand out copies of "indictments" to Congressional staff,[212] the courts have not regarded the "citizen grand juries" favorably. In June 2009, a group of 172 campaigners declared themselves to be a "Super American Grand Jury" and voted to charge Obama with treason and accused him of not being a US citizen.[213] Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the "indictment" on July 2 and declared: "[T]here is no authority under the Rules of Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this court to accept [a presentment]... The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States."[214] |
