| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
James Of Tucson
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: Berg's problem expained |
 |
|
"If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he defying orders to show his
documents?"
It is a misconception that Obama has been ordered to show them. So
far, no court has even entertained the question, let alone issued an
order for disclosure. Also, the order would have to be to the State of
Hawaii, not to Obama, since Obama does not have the original document
and could not be ordered to disclose something he doesn't have access
to.
It's also very easy to see why the courts don't accept the argument of
Berg and others. Basically, in order to get in the door with this, you
need evidence that can be admitted in court, that is sufficient to
cast reasonable doubt on several parties whose assertions are
considered to be fully acceptable by the courts.
The first is the State Department. Former Senator and President-Elect
Obama holds a United States Passport. This is prima facie evidence of
citizenship but does not speak to the question of natural-born
citizenship. However, in order to bring reasonable doubt against the
State Department, one would be required to show evidence that Obama's
citizenship was conferred artificially, at some time after his birth.
No such evidence has been found, and so the challenge fails.
The second is the State of Hawaii. The assertion, as the court would
read it, is that the Director of the Health Department of Hawaii, and
the Registrar of Vital Statistics, have both issued perjured claims as
to the validity of Obama's birth certificate. But without evidence to
show this, no court is going to challenge their official statements.
You need to understand that even if a judge were sympathetic to Berg's
complaint, the standards of evidence have simply not been met, in
order for a judge to consider the ruling he is being asked to make on
this matter. It is not even clear that a Federal District Judge has
the authority to issue a court order to the Governor of Hawaii, or
anyone else in the Hawaii State Government, without there first being
a hearing in a Hawaiian court. A Supreme Court ruling could compel the
State of Hawaii to release records, but that is not in the cards, for
the same reasons the lower courts have not made any judgments on this
question.
From the other direction, that is, constructive evidence that Obama
was born somewhere other than Honolulu, there is a certain adopted
Grandmother who, despite having never seen Barack Obama before he was
two years old, is reported to have claimed to have witnessed his
birth. Even if you are personally persuaded by this claim, it should
be easy for you to understand why such hearsay cannot be accepted as
evidence in a Federal court.
I do not believe anyone has suggested that Ms. Dunham was not a United
States citizen in 1961, so there is no question that one of Obama's
parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. And there is no
evidence that places her anywhere except Hawaii on his birth date.
This web site attempts to make a case, mainly by attacking a copy of a
document as being a forgery, or by making assertions that point to
absence of evidence to defend against Berg's claim, but the problem
is, no evidence is given to construct a case to demonstrate that Obama
is not a natural-born, United States citizen. The courts have so far
been unimpressed by claims that President-Elect Obama is obligated to
show anyone who is not already satisfied, any documentary evidence of
his citizenship.
Berg's case, and the others, do not bring evidence to the table that
casts reasonable doubt against a State Government or against Secretary
of State Dr. Rice.
Berg seems to believe that there is a conspiracy involving, at least,
1. The Bush Administration and the Secretary of State
2. The United States Senate
3. The Illinois Senate
4. The DNS and the RNC, including the McCain campaign who never
mentioned this matter
5. The United States Supreme Court, at least one District Court, and
several State and Municipal Courts
6. Two offices of the State of Hawaii
7. Two Honolulu newspapers
No matter where you stand on the issue of President-Elect Obama's
citizenship, you must realize the difficulty involved in making a case
that claims a conspiracy with this many powerful parties involved.
Without evidence, the case just falls to the floor. Have you ever
tried to fight city hall? This is exponentially more difficult. If
Berg is right, he's dealing with a conspiracy as big as that in any
JFK theory. If he's right, it appears the Republicans have done as
much to cover up Obama's birth as anyone else.
But perhaps some evidence will come to light, and it can be used
successfully to impeach Obama, and then we can look forward to
President Biden's administration. Perhaps he would appoint Senator
Clinton as his VP. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Juan M
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Berg's problem expained |
|
|
"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f46a46e3-5d38-4783-b185-e161ee1800a9@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
"If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he defying orders to show his
documents?"
It is a misconception that Obama has been ordered to show them. So
far, no court has even entertained the question, let alone issued an
order for disclosure. Also, the order would have to be to the State of
Hawaii, not to Obama, since Obama does not have the original document
and could not be ordered to disclose something he doesn't have access
to.
It's also very easy to see why the courts don't accept the argument of
Berg and others. Basically, in order to get in the door with this, you
need evidence that can be admitted in court, that is sufficient to
cast reasonable doubt on several parties whose assertions are
considered to be fully acceptable by the courts.
The first is the State Department. Former Senator and President-Elect
Obama holds a United States Passport. This is prima facie evidence of
citizenship but does not speak to the question of natural-born
citizenship. However, in order to bring reasonable doubt against the
State Department, one would be required to show evidence that Obama's
citizenship was conferred artificially, at some time after his birth.
No such evidence has been found, and so the challenge fails.
The second is the State of Hawaii. The assertion, as the court would
read it, is that the Director of the Health Department of Hawaii, and
the Registrar of Vital Statistics, have both issued perjured claims as
to the validity of Obama's birth certificate. But without evidence to
show this, no court is going to challenge their official statements.
You need to understand that even if a judge were sympathetic to Berg's
complaint, the standards of evidence have simply not been met, in
order for a judge to consider the ruling he is being asked to make on
this matter. It is not even clear that a Federal District Judge has
the authority to issue a court order to the Governor of Hawaii, or
anyone else in the Hawaii State Government, without there first being
a hearing in a Hawaiian court. A Supreme Court ruling could compel the
State of Hawaii to release records, but that is not in the cards, for
the same reasons the lower courts have not made any judgments on this
question.
From the other direction, that is, constructive evidence that Obama
was born somewhere other than Honolulu, there is a certain adopted
Grandmother who, despite having never seen Barack Obama before he was
two years old, is reported to have claimed to have witnessed his
birth. Even if you are personally persuaded by this claim, it should
be easy for you to understand why such hearsay cannot be accepted as
evidence in a Federal court.
I do not believe anyone has suggested that Ms. Dunham was not a United
States citizen in 1961, so there is no question that one of Obama's
parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. And there is no
evidence that places her anywhere except Hawaii on his birth date.
This web site attempts to make a case, mainly by attacking a copy of a
document as being a forgery, or by making assertions that point to
absence of evidence to defend against Berg's claim, but the problem
is, no evidence is given to construct a case to demonstrate that Obama
is not a natural-born, United States citizen. The courts have so far
been unimpressed by claims that President-Elect Obama is obligated to
show anyone who is not already satisfied, any documentary evidence of
his citizenship.
Berg's case, and the others, do not bring evidence to the table that
casts reasonable doubt against a State Government or against Secretary
of State Dr. Rice.
Berg seems to believe that there is a conspiracy involving, at least,
1. The Bush Administration and the Secretary of State
2. The United States Senate
3. The Illinois Senate
4. The DNS and the RNC, including the McCain campaign who never
mentioned this matter
5. The United States Supreme Court, at least one District Court, and
several State and Municipal Courts
6. Two offices of the State of Hawaii
7. Two Honolulu newspapers
No matter where you stand on the issue of President-Elect Obama's
citizenship, you must realize the difficulty involved in making a case
that claims a conspiracy with this many powerful parties involved.
Without evidence, the case just falls to the floor. Have you ever
tried to fight city hall? This is exponentially more difficult. If
Berg is right, he's dealing with a conspiracy as big as that in any
JFK theory. If he's right, it appears the Republicans have done as
much to cover up Obama's birth as anyone else.
But perhaps some evidence will come to light, and it can be used
successfully to impeach Obama, and then we can look forward to
President Biden's administration. Perhaps he would appoint Senator
Clinton as his VP.
|
You're absolutely right, but the idiot class doesn't believe in logic.
that's why they listen to Rush and his dittoheads. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James Of Tucson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Berg's problem expained |
|
|
On Nov 20, 2:36 pm, "Juan M" <juanmSPAMME...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | You're absolutely right, but the idiot class doesn't believe in logic.
that's why they listen to Rush and his dittoheads.
|
Even Limbaugh is sensible enough to stay away from this nonsense about
Obama's citizenship.
But these are people who will believe anything that meshes with their
warped view. We should be finding ways to make money off 'em. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Fritzinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Berg's problem expained |
|
|
On Nov 20, 9:14 pm, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 20, 2:36 pm, "Juan M" <juanmSPAMME...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're absolutely right, but the idiot class doesn't believe in logic.
that's why they listen to Rush and his dittoheads.
Even Limbaugh is sensible enough to stay away from this nonsense about
Obama's citizenship.
But these are people who will believe anything that meshes with their
warped view. We should be finding ways to make money off 'em.
|
Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. already have...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
