==>> viewtopic.php?f=11&t=230 <<==
- Flashing_sign.gif (4.58 KiB) Viewed 2213 times
PDF files of all the court filings (District Court and Supreme Court) are available for download at the end of this document.
This comment/thread is under construction and will likely remain that way for a long time (maybe permanently) as edits and updates will be made on an ongoing basis. It is my intention to cover this case from day one to the end including links to other articles, all docket entries, and downloadable PDF files of all court filings (pleadings, orders, opinions, etc.). Your "one stop shopping center" for (hopefully) easy understanding.
11/18/2008 I have renamed this document since it will now only be about the Supreme Court case. I hope to cover the District Court case in a followup article.
This is a very time consuming project and, as I progress with writing it, I keep discovering things I missed or should have said differently. You can help by making suggestions for changes and/or additions and where they should be placed. Please do so by adding your replies to this post. Phil Berg's Obama Crimes website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/
United States Supreme Court
For Supreme Court Docket Entries see: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS (beginning stages)
Currently we are in the beginning stages of a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS brought about by Obama and the DNC's legal maneuvering to avoid showing evidence that Mr. Obama is even eligible to be POTUS. The Framers, when writing this priceless document that has served us so well, making us the greatest nation in the history of the world, saw the wisdom in requiring that our president be a "natural born" citizen. (They wanted to be sure that the country's chief executive would owe undivided loyalty to the United States alone.)
Contrary to what the Framers had in mind and what is required by the Constitution, we now find ourselves having a "president elect" who appears not to be "natural born" and may not even be a citizen at all. To say the least, through his writings and actions, he has certainly shown that at least part of his loyalties lie elsewhere, with his Muslim brothers (think Odinga) and others who are anti American and pro terrorist (think Wright, Ayers, Klonsky, Khalid Al-Mansour, Farrakhan, etc., ad nauseum). <If someone would like to write a little blurb on his loyalties and post it in a reply to this comment, I will be glad to copy it and put it here.>
This crisis could have been avoided altogether by either 1) Mr. Obama willingly supplying the certified documentary proof of his eligibility or 2) Judge Surrick of the US District Court having used the equity powers of the Court to force the documentation to be produced rather than taking the easy route of dismissing the case for lack of standing.
Equity is the name given to the set of legal principles, in jurisdictions following the English common law tradition, which supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly, so as to achieve what is sometimes referred to as "natural justice." It is often confusingly contrasted with "law", which in this context refers to "statutory law" (the laws enacted by a legislature, such as the United States Congress), and "common law" (the principles established by judges when they decide cases). More on this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)
Alas, Judge Surrick did not do the equitable thing and instead, punted, causing Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg to file an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on October 29. Then, on October 30, Attorney Berg filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as well as an application to Justice Souter--the applicable Justice given this region--for an immediate injunction to stay the presidential election, at the time, only five days away. On November 3, Justice Souter rightly denied the application to stay the election (it was simply too late a date for that to be done). It is now time for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to step up to the plate, grant Certiorari, and decide that a citizen of the United States does, in fact, have standing to question the eligibility of a candidate for the highest office in the land. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is still active before the Court (they have not yet decided whether to hear and rule on the appeal).
In the United States, certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error and review, where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right; therefore, a party who wants that court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the Court grants the petition (see Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States), the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.
Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four." The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool. More on this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_certiorari
An excerpt from the writ, on the standing issue (copied from America's Right website):
The very essence of civil liberty, wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. Against the backdrop of historical Supreme Court precedent beginning with Marbury and extending through Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008), the better-informed “test” for the injury-in-fact prong of the standing doctrine analysis more resembles a “sliding scale” of factors and variables operating as a function of the speculative nature and/or remoteness of the allegations. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 (1972); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998); Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008); Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000).
In Morton, this Court held that the environmentalist plaintiffs had standing, as injury to “aesthetic and environmental well-being” was enough to adequately constitute personal “stake” and injury in fact. 405 U.S. at 734. Subsequently, in Hunt, this Court held that despite a lack of personal “stake,” an association has standing to bring suit so long as the interests in question are relevant to the organization’s purpose and regardless of whether the claims asserted or relief requested involve the individual members of the organization. 432 U.S. at 343. Furthermore, in Laidlaw, a case stemming from noncompliance with the Clean Water Act, this Court noted the importance of a plaintiff’s demonstration of standing but followed up by stating that “it is wrong to maintain that citizen plaintiffs facing ongoing violations never have standing to seek civil penalties.” 528 U.S. at 184. More recently, in Akins, this Court rendered a decision maintaining that individual voters’ inability to obtain alleged public information met the injury in fact requirement, as it helped to ensure that the Court will adjudicate “a concrete, living contest between adversaries.” 524 U.S. at 21. Similarly and finally, in APCC, decided by this Court in June 2008, the conventional, “personal stake” approach promulgated in cases such as Lujan and Baker gave way to the idea that the “personal stake” requirement and the three requirements of standing—injury in fact, causation and redressibility—are “flip sides of the same coin” and are simply two different ways of ensuring that each case or controversy presents “that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination.” APCC, 128 S.Ct. at 2543.
The case at hand may lack the specificity of injury in fact required by Lujan, but the allegations from which the action arises are no more speculative or remote than the importance of environmental aesthetics of Morton or the party disconnect evident in Hunt. The foundation of the claims presented by Mr. Berg, the will to avoid a certain constitutional crisis, certainly amount to a “personal stake,” but in the case that this Court may deem otherwise, the underlying claims absolutely present the adversarial contest under which standing was found in the recent decisions in Akins and APCC.
Without a doubt, the Respondents will note that the premise behind Akins was the failure to obtain information, and will attempt to distinguish APCC because it involves standing in the context of contracts, assignors and assignees. However, Mr. Berg has indeed sought information vital to the election process put forth in the U.S. Constitution, and this Court in APCC stated that, apart from historical precedent for permitting suits by assignees under assignments for collection, “n any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more recent decisions of this Court.” Furthermore, this Court’s treatment of the standing doctrine in APCC should be enough to show that the reasoning exhibited by the district court judge, grounded in Lujan, misperceives the three prongs of standing as enunciated just four months ago by this Court.
Therefore, because of the reasons stated above, because of the “sliding scale” nature of a “test” for injury in fact, because the very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury, this Court should hold that the Petitioner has standing to prosecute this action and reverse the decision from the district court which maintains otherwise. Much more at: http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/be ... rnoon.html
Perhaps an even more compelling reason for the Court to grant Certiorari:
[i]OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him. Article continues, much more at: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
The Constitutional Crisis at this Point in Time
At this point in time, if Obama is found ineligible, who is the next POTUS? There are several possibilities, each with its own problem(s):
- 1) The Obama electors vote for his VP, Biden. Is this constitutional? He was never a candidate for President (only a candidate for nomination who got the least number of popular votes).
2) The Obama electors vote for Hillary. Is this constitutional? She also was never a candidate for President (only a candidate for nomination who got 18 million votes).
3) The Obama electors vote for someone entirely different, maybe even *ugh* Queen Pelosi. Is this constitutional? She was never even a candidate for nomination.
4) The Obama electors say the hell with the constitution, the people elected Obama and that's who we're going to vote for. Definitely unconstitutional.
5) The Obama electors totally shock everyone vote for McCain (after all, he did receive more votes than any other valid candidate). Even this may not be constitutional.
Are the Obama electors actually electors at all? If Obama fraudulently ran while ineligible, doesn't that make the selection of those electors fraudulent and invalidate their election?
What to do? What to do? Do you know what to do? I don't. Simply put, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only ones who can answer this with any authority. Plain and simple, it's their job.
The above scenario is if Obama is found ineligible before the electors meet and cast their votes. After that, it gets even more complicated.
The Constitutional Crisis After December 15th
If the case is not decided before the Electoral College casts their votes on December 15, Obama will win the Electoral College vote and truly become the President Elect. What happens if he is then found to be ineligible after that vote and before Congress certifies his election on Jan. 6, 2009? This could get interesting. Several scenarios now present themselves:
The Constitution sets the date for the Electoral College vote as Dec. 15, but maybe the Electoral College could have an emergency re-election and:
- 1) Elect Obama anyway (to hell with the Constitution, the people voted for him). Definitely unconstitutional.
2) They elect Biden.
3) They elect Hillary.
4) They elect someone entirely different, maybe even *ugh* Queen Pelosi.
5) They totally shock everyone and elect McCain.
NOTE: I think I'm missing some other possibility here, but I can't think of what it is.
Can the Electors constitutionally do any of these? Perhaps. They cannot constitutionally cast their votes for Obama if he's not eligible, but what about the other options? They can only constitutionally cast their ballots if they are in fact valid electors. If they were elected in a fraudulent election??????
What to do? What to do? Do you know what to do? I don't. Simply put, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only ones who can answer this with any authority. Plain and simple, it's their job.
The Constitutional Crisis On and After January 6
On January 6, Congress will meet to accept and certify the vote of the Electoral College. If Obama has not been found ineligible, they will certify him as the next POTUS to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009. If he has been found ineligible, the possible scenarios here must be split into to sub categories:
- 1) The Electoral College has elected Obama anyway. (Opens a whole can of worms we'll get into later.)
2) The Electoral College has elected someone other than Obama and submitted their votes for certification. (Were they constitutionally able to do so, or was their makeup and therefor their vote fraudulent?)
3) The Electoral College threw up their hands and dissolved their meeting without a vote being submitted to Congress.
What will Congress do if Obama is ineligible and either 1, 2, or 3 directly above have taken place? They are charged by the Constitution with examining and certifying the vote of the Electoral College, and if not possible, selecting the new POTUS and VPOTUS. This is ONLY after processing the vote from the Electoral College which is duly elected by the people. If there was a fraudulent candidate, and therefor a fraudulent Electoral College itself, can Congress legitimately even examine that vote? Can that vote fail to produce a result that Congress can legitimately accept or deny? Does a fraudulently elected Electoral College even legitimately exist at all? I think NOT. Since Congress is only charged with selecting POTUS and VPOTUS after a non-productive vote of the Electoral College, can Congress select them if the Electoral College, because of fraud, didn't exist? I don't know. Do you?
What to do? What to do? Do you know what to do? I don't. Simply put, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only ones who can answer this with any authority. Plain and simple, it's their job.
The Constitutional Crisis If An Ineligible Person Is Sworn In As POTUS
If an ineligible person is sworn in as President of the United States we have a total disaster in one or more of the following ways:
- 1) He must be removed from office, but how to do it?
- a) The constitution says the President can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate for, and if found guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors" is removed from office. This leads to the following possibilities:
- 1) He is charged by the House and convicted and removed by the Senate. Sounds good, but if he was fraudulently sworn in, was he ever really POTUS? Probably not. If not, does the Constitution give Congress the authority to remove a non-president, or would he have to be removed by the Court I don't know, do you?
2) If he was ineligible to be President, are any laws, bills, or executive orders that he signed valid? I think not.
b) How about if one of his executive orders was to pardon terrorists and murderers setting them free. Can they then be rearrested and put back in prison since the pardons weren't valid, or would the constitutional ban against double jeopardy take precedence?
c) What if he sent our troops into a war? Would our troops now be war criminals?
d) The list of possible disastrous problems could go on and on and . . . . . and . . . .
2) If he is removed by Congress, or even the Supreme Court, who becomes POTUS?
- a) Biden? Seems logical because he is VP, but if the Obama/Biden ticket was fraudulent, was Biden actually VP?
b) If not Biden, then who? Next in line after the VP is the Speaker of the House. Would *UGH* Nancy "Queen" Pelosi become POTUS? GOD FORBID! But, if the Speaker is only third in line and there never really was a first two, she never was third, was she? This gets confusing.
c) Could McCain, as the party receiving the second largest number of Electoral votes become POTUS? At this point, I doubt it.
d) Could Congress simply elect POTUS and VPOTUS? Perhaps, but since there may not have actually been a valid Electoral College vote, I think the Constitutional directive becomes unclear and the only party able to decide the meaning of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Hmmm. . .
e) Could Bush be sworn back in as temporary POTUS until the mess is sorted out? Perhaps, but the Constitution strictly limits him to two terms. Ouch, my head hurts! Maybe Carter, our only living single term president, could be sworn in as temporrary POTUS (at least he's constitutionally eligible and he was elected once). Now my head is really splitting!
I'm not really serious here, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous this can become.3) If he is removed from office without someone in place to take over, who runs the country in the meantime? Who is in charge of the military? The Department of Justice? The Treasury? etc.? Hell, who is even in charge of the federally employed janitors?
What to do? What to do? Do you know what to do? I don't. Simply put, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only ones who can answer this with any authority. Plain and simple, it's their job and they need to do it NOW!
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION BY THE NINE SUPREMES
As you can see, the longer it takes to decide the issue of Obama's eligibility, the worse the crisis becomes.
It's time for the nine members of the "Supremes" to play ball. The ball is squarely in their Court (pun intended) and they surely must act NOW!
Let's all hope they hit a HOME RUN for the Constitution and the United States of America.
We Can All Do Our Small Part To Help
For things you can do, see:
viewforum.php?f=5More to come soon.
To reply to or comment on this document or to see comments about this document:
==>> viewtopic.php?f=11&t=230 <<==
Also visit Phil Berg's Obama Crimes website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Philip J. Berg Appeals Obama Case To USSC (Part 1 of 2)
Philip J. Berg Appeals Obama Case To USSC (Part 2 of 2)
Supreme Court Filings:
US_Supreme_Court_Writ_of_Certiorari_10_30_08.pdf- Petition to US Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari_10-30-2008
- (202.86 KiB) Downloaded 23 times
--------------------------------------
- Application_to_Justice._Souter_for_stay.pdf
- Application to Stay the Election
- (206.87 KiB) Downloaded 10 times
------------------------------
United States District Court for the Eastern District of PA
For District Court Docket Entries see: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=93
District Court Filings:
8-22-2008
- Comp for Delaratory and Injuntive Relief 8-22.pdf
- Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief
Preliminary Statement 8/22/2008 - (714.83 KiB) Downloaded 7 times
-------------------------
- Motion for TRO and Expidited Discovery 8-22-08.pdf
- Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Expedited Discovery 8-22-08 - (162.32 KiB) Downloaded 5 times
---------------------------
- Memorandum - Mot for TRO and Exp Dis 8-22-08.pdf
- Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Expedited Discovery 8-22-08 - (741.69 KiB) Downloaded 5 times
--------------------------------------
9-9-2008
- MOTION FOR EXTENSIVE AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 9-9.pdf
- MOTION FOR EXTENSIVE AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
INCLUDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF
BARACK OBAMA and HOWARD DEAN
WITH A SPECIAL MASTER 9/9/2008 - (165.14 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
-----------------------------------------
9-24-2008
- Mot to dismiss 9-24-08.pdf
- DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S
MOTION TO DISMISS 9/24/2008 - (62.21 KiB) Downloaded 12 times
-------------------------------
9-29-2008
- Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 9-29-08.pdf
- 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) 9/29/2008 - (192.7 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
-----------------
10-06-2008
- PLNTF MOT FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED complaint.pdf
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10/06/2008
- (65.33 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
--------------------------------------10/6
- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT .pdf
- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10/06/2008
- (313.47 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
--------------------------
- Motion for Protective Order 10-06-08.pdf
- MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION 10/06/2008 - (112.68 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
-----------------
10-9-2008
- Response to Motion for Protective Order 10-9.pdf
- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS BARACK H. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITVE MOTION - (116.4 KiB) Downloaded 8 times
---------------------------
10-20-2008
- Mot to Dis 1st amend 10-20-08.pdf
- MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND SENATOR BARACK OBAMA TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10/20/2008 - (74.07 KiB) Downloaded 5 times
--------------------------
10-21-2008
- Motion Expidited Admit 10-21-08.pdf
- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN EXPEDITED RULING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION DEEMING PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS - ADMITTED 10/21/2008 - (63.41 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
----------------------
- Motion for Order Admitted 10-21-08.pdf
- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE ORDER DEEMING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
ADMITTED 10/21/2008 - (60.31 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
---------------------------------------
- FEC Memorandum 10-21-2008.pdf
- FEC Memorandum of Law - Motion to Dismiss 10/21/2008
- (61.91 KiB) Downloaded 15 times
-------------------------
- FEC Motion TO Dissmiss 10-21-08.pdf
- FEC Motion to Dismiss 10/21/2008
- (39.24 KiB) Downloaded 13 times
------------------------------
10-22-2008
- Motion for Summary Judgment 10-22-08.pdf
- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 10/22/2008 - (100.17 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
-----------------------------------
- Pl 1st Req for Admissions Obama 10-22-08.pdf
- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 10/22/2008
- (81.26 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
---------------------------
- Pl 1st Req Admissions DNC 10-22-08.pdf
- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
TO DEFENDANT DEMOCRACTIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE [DNC] 10/22/2008 - (68.78 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
--------------------------
10-24-2008
- Surrick Opinion Dismissing Case 10-24-08.pdf
- Judge Surrick's Opinion and Order Dismissing the Case for lack of standing 10/24/2008
- (179.4 KiB) Downloaded 11 times
------------------------
10-30-2008
- Notice of Appeal 3C 10-30-08.pdf
- Notice of Appeal to 3rd Circuit file in District Court 10/30/2008
- (92.56 KiB) Downloaded 7 times
--------------------------
Exhibits:
-------------------------------------------------
- Affidavit_Kweli_Shuhubia_10-30-2008.pdf
- Affidavit of Kweli Shuhubia 10-30-2008
- (147 KiB) Downloaded 20 times
-------------------------------------------------
- Affidavit_of_Bishop_Ron_McRae.pdf
- Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
- (3.61 MiB) Downloaded 18 times
-------------------------------------------------
- Ron_McRae_Affidavit_Exhibits.pdf
- Ron McRae Affidavit Exhibits
- (179.26 KiB) Downloaded 15 times
-------------------------------------------------
- Exhibit_Charter_Schools_Rainbow_Edition_Newsletter.pdf
- Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter
- (656.94 KiB) Downloaded 13 times
-------------------------------------------------
- Exhibit_Star_Bulletin_Obama_born_in_different_hostpital.pdf
- Exhibit Star_Bulletin: Obama born in different hostpital
- (42.73 KiB) Downloaded 18 times
--------------------------------------------
- Exhibit_Plaintiff_Request_for_Admissions_to_Obama.pdf
- Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama
- (79.4 KiB) Downloaded 11 times
--------------------------------------
- Sarah_Obama_Interview_Transcript.pdf
- Sarah Obama Interview Transcript
- (67.16 KiB) Downloaded 43 times
To reply to or comment on this document or to see comments about this document:
==>> viewtopic.php?f=11&t=230 <<==
.
