Main Menu

Phil Berg gets a makeover

I must say, the recent revamp of Phil Berg’s blog, ObamaCrimes.com, is a major improvement. It’s a nice, reserved and readable WordPress theme, although the paint still isn’t quite dry (it still links to the WordPress development blog). It has a nice collection of links to the documents in his cases with pop-up hint text telling what the document is about (from his point of view).

My only real complaint is the all too prominent  donation link.Obamacrimes looks much better than his law office web site.

81 Responses to Phil Berg gets a makeover

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    I left the following comment on Berg’s new blog. It didn’t appear to be moderated:

    Congratulations, Mr. Berg, on the new ObamaCrimes web site. Its a very clean and readable layout. I’m sure that publishing the links to the important documents in your cases will help everyone be better informed and not have to rely on rumors.

    I would say to commenter Francine Irving, that while many Obama critics are undoubtedly racists, I don’t see that such criticism fairly applies to you. While I don’t agree with your theories about the President, you do not wallow in the nasty invective that characterizes the racist opposition.

  2. avatar
    get yer phil ! November 16, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

    please donate! often!

  3. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    Berg always maintained that if Obama/Soetoro was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural-born citizen. Fans of Sven Magnussen know I don’t advocate the Natural-born citizen classification as permanent, but Berg did.

    I don’t understand why Obama didn’t answer Berg v. Obama with a certified copy of his COLB and case the closed.

  4. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    “… close the case.”

    Unfortunately I haven’t been drinking, so it’s an early stage of dementia.

  5. avatar
    elmo November 17, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    Sven, you would understand if you were a lawyer, or had any familiarity with legal proceedings.

    But maybe you can answer something for me. I don’t understand why birthers won’t accept the repeated statements of public officials in Hawaii (including Republican ones) all attesting to the fact of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. What’s up with that?

  6. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 17, 2009 at 2:10 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Berg always maintained that if Obama/Soetoro was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural-born citizen.

    That’s not true — Berg’s original complaint was the usual hodgepodge which included an allegation that Obama “lost” his citizenship when he was taken to Indonesia and enrolled in school there.

    I don’t understand why Obama didn’t answer Berg v. Obama with a certified copy of his COLB and case the closed.

    See above.

    That’s not how legal procedure works — the defendant can’t just produced some evidentiary document and have the court make a determination right then and there. The defendant in a lawsuit has 3 options: (1) He can respond by filing a motion to dismiss on grounds that even if everything said in the complaint weren’t true, there is still no case. (2) He can filed an “answer”, which is NOT submission of any sort of evidence but rather a pleading that frames the issues by saying what parts of the complaint he disagrees with (or “denies”). (3) He can ignore the complaint and allow a default to be taken against him.

    When the defendant does #2, then “discovery” commences, which is when each side is able to gather as much evidence as possible with the help of the court’s legal authority: to subpena documents, serve interrogatories, take depositions, etc.

    So, if served with a complaint founded on questionable legal grounds, no lawyer in their right mind would skip #1 — that would be gross incompetence of counsel. #1 is also the cheapest, fastest way to resolve a lawsuit — it generally requires a few hours of legal research and a single court appearance, as opposed to the hours an hours of time expended in the discovery phase. Since lawyers bill by the hour, procedure #1 is something that might cost the client a few thousand dollars. Once you are at step #2, the client is looking at tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, in legal fees.

    (Step #3 of course would be inappropriate if the defendant contests the basis of the suit. Sometimes, however, there is no dispute — it is often done in divorce cases when both spouses are in a hurry to end a marriage.)

  7. avatar
    John November 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Wow! Get a Load of This. Orly Taitz has been saying that Carter was very concerned with her case and wanted to get to merits. Unfortunately he never did and dismissed the case. Taking Orly’s advice, I read the September 2009 Hearing Transcript. Orly is abolutely right. In it Carter makes the important fundamental point:

    “Let me Remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is the command in chief.”

    This is probably Carter’s most important statement in the whole hearing that clearly defines Carter’s concern on the issue. Notice that uses the term “Command in Chief” to establish that is great concern for military as Orly’s has alot of military plantiffs.

    The October Hearing came, and it’s clear that Carter lost his Gun-Ho.

    Carter then dismissed the case on a lack of standing and juristication.

    While Carter attempts to support his reasons with law, Carter clearly makes statements that shows that someone influenced him or that he was under pressure.

    Remember, the key quote I cited from the September hearing? Now Carter has completely different opinion on the concern for the military that Obama is an eligible Commander in Chief.

    Quotes From Decision:

    “The duty not to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander in Chief. It is a unequivocal duty to defend our country.”

    “The court has a word for such refusal to follow the orders of the POTUS, but will leave the issue for the military to resolve.”

    Hmm… I wonder what changed Carter’s mind? Perhaps the law clerk from Obama’s lawyer firm has something to do with it. It is definitely worth vetting everything we can about that law clerk.

  8. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    My comment was based on a radio interview I heard with Berg. Berg was clear. If BO was born in Hawaii, then he’s a Natural-born citizen. Berg went on to press the issue that BO was born in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar, now Kenya.

    I’m from the school of thought Natural-born citizenship can be obtained or lost depending on a citizen’s circumstance. For example, a person who commits treason against the US and has their sentence commuted. I would think they would lose their Natural-born citizenship status, yet they are a native-born citizen.

  9. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    Orly needs to focus on BO’s adoption and his actions to obtain Indonesian Nationality.

    It’s important to note BO’s mother would not have have been able to obtain a US passport for BO unless his biological father appeared at the passport office in person or expressly granted written consent for BO to obtain a US passport.

    It is nearly impossible for a single mother to obtain a US passport for a minor when the biological father is absent. An adoption through a Family Court is a game changer. After the adoption is complete, the adoptive father can grant consent for the minor to obtain the US passport.

    After BO became Barry Soetoro, it was easier for him to become an Indonesian National.

  10. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    You know what else happened between the hearing and the decision? There was a motion to dismiss and Orly filed her answer to that motion.

    Maybe your time would be better spent vetting the quality of the respective briefs. Read the cases the government cites, read the cases Orly cites, determine whether Orly gets within a mile of the controlling law.

    Come back to us when you’re done. To prove that you’ve done your homework, please show your work. What were the facts and holding for each case that the government and Orly cites?

  11. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    Focusing on Obama’s alleged adoption won’t get her over the hurdle of standing.

    Oh, and you can’t get over the hurdle of not understanding the law.

  12. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    We want to see the complete birth record because an adoption by a foreign national could change the status of his qualifications to be President.

    Questions for the Court:

    Does a native-born citizen lose his Natural-born citizenship status when the native-born citizen is adopted by a foreign national?

    Does a native-born citizen lose his Natural-born status if he is adopted by a foreign national, moves to a foreign country and states an oath of allegiance to this foreign country?

  13. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    John and Sven: Frankly you offend both common sense and the 69 million Americans who voted for Obama and many who did not.

    The term “natural born citizen” is poorly defined at best, otherwise we would not be arguing about it. Barack Obama announced his candidacy on January 2007, 21 months before the election and 24 months before he became President. All of his Democratic and Republican and third party opponents had ample opportunity to raise any issues they wanted. The voters considered his background-including their judgement of his eligibility, character, stands on the issues and anything else they felt like considering and 69 million voted for him. That choice was ratified by the Electoral College and unanimously by the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

    Along come a few underemployed attorneys (we can see why they are not otherwise occupied by the quality of their work) who wish to say in effect, we know better than all 69 million voters and all members of Congress. This despite the fact that dozens of reknowned legal scholars endorsed Obama (and I’m betting Obama easily got 80% of the vote among professors of law). These underemployed lawyers come before judges and ask them to overturn an election that happened a year ago. Then they seem shocked when the judges tell them no.

    The simple truth is that no judge will or should overturn an election unless there is absolutely overwhelming evidence (and even then he must think long and hard). And the evidence here is quite underwhelming to say the least.

  14. avatar
    Black Lion November 17, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    Sven, of course you have a section of the US Immigration law that supports this statement of yours, right? So if there is a single mother and the child was born in the US, she could not go and get a passport for the child unless she was with the father? Do you know how dumb that statement really is? But prove me wrong. Let us see where it says in the law what you claim.

    Secondly where is the proof of adoption? I mean you have been making that claim for almost a year but never provide us with any proof. And what actions are we discussing regarding Obama trying to get Indonesian nationality?

    Your theories are as dumb as when you were pusing your consular passport theory or your infamous refugee status theory earlier this year. How did those theories work out for you?

  15. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Answers from the court:

    No – Perkins v. Elg – Expatriation requires a voluntary act on the part of the citizen. The adoption by a foreigner is not voluntary.

    No – Perkins v. Elg – Expatriation requires a voluntary act. Minors cannot make voluntary acts.

    Question for Sven:

    Why don’t you actually read Perkins v. Elg?

  16. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    I’ll let you do the Google search on “passport minor single parent.”

    As an example, let’s say Stanley Ann went into the passport office to get BO a passport without the biological father. Stanley Ann can’t get the biological father’s consent because he has been absent, unsupportive emotionally and financially, and living outside of the U.S.

    A passport is issued and BO is taken to Indonesia. Years later, BO Sr. shows and states BO is next in line to be a tribal elder in the Luo Tribe and needs to be taken back to Kenya to begin training for his destiny as a tribal leader.

    The US State Department says, “I’m sorry. We gave his mother a passport and he’s out of the country.” And then a xenophobe steps out of the shadows and says, “Besides, no American wants to give up US citizenship. Even if it means becoming a tribal leader.”

    Now you got yourself involved in an International incident.

  17. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    To cause a loss of that citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be voluntary action, and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who, during minority, is incapable of a binding choice.

    Perkins v. Elg

  18. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    I’m a helper. I like to help people.

    Once it’s determined beyond a reasonable doubt Barack is ineligible and no one can stop him, then he’ll be more powerful.

    He may decide term limits for Presidents are unconstitutional and the majority of Americans will agree. The Congress does not have term limits. Why should the President?

    Trust me. You’ll thank me when you see history unfold.

  19. avatar
    NbC November 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    As an example, let’s say Stanley Ann went into the passport office to get BO a passport without the biological father. Stanley Ann can’t get the biological father’s consent because he has been absent, unsupportive emotionally and financially, and living outside of the U.S.

    Which is why alternatives exist.

    * sole custody
    * a court order allowing the parent to travel with the child
    * a written statement under penalty of perjury that the other parent agrees to issuance or is unavailable
    * a termination of the other parent’s parental rights
    * or compelling humanitarian reasons relating to the welfare of the child

    Your fantasy however is fascinating.

  20. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    As usual, Sven has his fact wrong.

    In the case of minor with a single parent having sole custody, the single parent has to do the following to apply for a passport for the minor:

    Appear in person with the minor

    Sign Form DS-11 in front of an Acceptance Agent

    Submit primary evidence of sole authority to apply for the child with one of the following:

    Court order granting sole custody to the applying parent (unless child’s travel is restricted by that order)

    It’s all here:

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/minors/minors_834.html

    As we know, the 1964 divorce decree granted sole custody to Obama’s mother, so she would have had absolutely no difficulty getting a passport for him.

  21. avatar
    Black Lion November 17, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Usually that is the response that we expect from the birthers. You never source your wild fantasies…However thanks to NBC for doing your work and showing that of course there are other ways besides your original wild theory of events…

  22. avatar
    NbC November 17, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Orly needs to focus on BO’s adoption and his actions to obtain Indonesian Nationality.

    More unsupported fantasy by Sven..

  23. avatar
    Black Lion November 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    Rickey, you know that Sven doesn’t let facts get in the way of his wild fantasies…I mean even though he can’t prove it he is still on the adoption kick and the President somehow magically losing his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia and becoming a citizen of that country even though it has been shown that scenario couldn’t have happened…

  24. avatar
    Jez November 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen says:
    Once it’s determined beyond a reasonable doubt Barack is ineligible and no one can stop him, then he’ll be more powerful.

    The key phrase is reasonable doubt. For a majority of reasonable people, having the State of Hawai’i issue statements confirming the validity the CoLB that was posted online for all the world to see, there is no reasonable doubt. It’s the unreasonable that has allowed this idiocy to continue.

    Since Presidential term limits is actually a Constitutional Amendment, it will be a bit difficult to change easily. A couple of different Representatives have submitted bills/amendment proposals to revoke the term limits for close to 15 years. It comes up just about every Congressional session.

  25. avatar
    Black Lion November 17, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    Sven, that is not illegal. As long as he gets 2/3 of Congress and the 3/4 of the States to pass an amenedment to overturn the (I believe it is the 25th) amendment that limits terms for the President, then there is no issue with the Constitution. That is the law. But to make up unsubstantiated theories makes no sense and makes you look foolish. We have already seen history unfold. This is the first time that the President of the US has been accused of being a Muslim, terrrorist, usurper, and other ridiculous terms.

  26. avatar
    SFJeff November 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    “For example, a person who commits treason against the US and has their sentence commuted. I would think they would lose their Natural-born citizenship status”

    Where in the Constitution does it say this Sven?

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: We want to see the complete birth record because an adoption by a foreign national could change the status of his qualifications to be President.

    I’m trying to think of an exception, but I do not think an adoption by a foreign national carried out in a foreign country would ever be filed with a US birth record. Normally such things come from the courts, but not from foreign courts.

    Of course no adoption would matter in this case.

  28. avatar
    SFJeff November 17, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    You know, listening to the unsupported rhetoric of Sven and John and the other Birthers, it would be ‘reasonable’ to conclude that they are trying to overthrow a legally elected constitutional government, and it would be “reasonable” to assume that this was being done at the behest of some unfriendly foreign government or perhaps a group of less than sophisticated terrorists to weaken the United States.

    Of course this would just be a ‘reasonable’ suspicion, and I have nothing to support it, but in this game, I don’t need proof do I? So its okay for me to assume that Sven is an agent provacatuer of China or Iran.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    Sven Magnussen: It is nearly impossible for a single mother to obtain a US passport for a minor when the biological father is absent.

    Actually, it’s no harder than getting a visa to Pakistan in 1981. In the case of sole custody, one need only show the court order. Following is the Divorce Decree text:

    … DECREES that the Libellant [Stanley Ann] be and she is hereby granted the care, custody and control of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, the minor child of the parties hereto…

  30. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    Sven: I’m guessing from your name that you’re Swedish or perhaps Danish. Now in Sweden and Denmark, I believe the people are allowed to choose their leaders. Yet you want to deny that to the American people. And I have to ask why? Do you believe that Americans are not as smart as Swedes or Danes and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to freely choose their leaders like you wise Scandinavians?

    Yet even though you believe that American are too dumb to choose their leaders you believe in the mystical power of judges chosen by political leaders elected by those same dumb Americans. That is until those judges rule the way that you, the all-knowing Swen don’t like.

    Personally, I don’t want unelected judges choosing my President. I’m just old-fashioned enough that I want the people to do it, thank you very much.

    Bur anyway, all the judges seem to think you’re full of sh$$ too.

  31. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Will a google search of “passport minor single parent” tell us about what the law was in the 60s and 70s?

  32. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Rickey, you know that Sven doesn’t let facts get in the way of his wild fantasies.

    Yeah, I know…but I have a compulsion to correct lies and misstatements of fact wherever I find them. It’s a curse, I tell ya.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Troll bait.

  34. avatar
    catbit November 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Here is the official information as it stands today: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/minors/minors_834.html

    It has been noted that some of the dual-parent requirements are more recent and designed to prevent child abduction. Nonetheless, there are provisions for single/divorced parents with sole custody.

  35. avatar
    NbC November 17, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    Carter basically decided that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction which dooms any legal action related to President Obama’s eligibility

    Just following the Constitution

  36. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Yes, you could have video of Obama being born on Alpha Centauri to a Martian and a Venusian and there would still be no issue for the courts. You could try to make that a campaign issue in 2012, but some of us might look on that favorably.

    I wonder of Swen realizes that the election is over? Now we discuss policy. Then in 2012, we can rehash this nonsense if anyone still cares.

  37. avatar
    Passerby November 17, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:It is nearly impossible for a single mother to obtain a US passport for a minor when the biological father is absent.

    Okay, here’s what I really, really don’t understand. This is a perfect example. It took me less than two minutes to find out that this isn’t true in the case where one parent has sole legal custody. Five seconds on Google (because I couldn’t remember the exact URL of the State Department’s passport pages), and then about a minute and a half or so on the travel.state.gov.

    I mean, it’s one thing to state falsehoods that are hard to disprove. But to state falsehoods that can be disproved in less than two minutes, and by someone who is by no means an expert–that just makes no sense to me. How is that supposed to help your case? Every easily-disproven statement just calls everything else into doubt, even in the case where it sounds reasonable.

    I’m just confused by this.

  38. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    And the reason changing his last name from Obama to Soetoro …?

  39. avatar
    NbC November 17, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    Again, no evidence of such exists.

  40. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    I wonder if the Fed Law in 1965 is different from the Fed Law of 2009?

  41. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Sven: Is it true you are really the one who killed Olof Palme?

  42. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    “I don’t understand why Obama didn’t answer Berg v. Obama with a certified copy of his COLB and case the closed.”

    I don’t understand why Glenn Beck didn’t answer the claim he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. All he has to do is release a certified copy of his criminal record abstract stamped “subject has clear record to date.” What’s he hiding?

    SHOW US YOUR RECORDS BECK!!!

  43. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    Okay, Stanley Ann requested Sole Custody and it was Ordered Stanley Ann should get control, custody and care. BO Sr. was granted visitation rights.

    Visitation rights trumps Sole Custody.

  44. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    Dunham is dead. Obama Sr is dead. Obama Jr is President. Nothing can change those 3 facts.

    Now I am DEMANDING you prove that you didn’t kill Olof Palme.

  45. avatar
    Passerby November 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    You wonder? Don’t you know? You’re the one making this claim. Do you have a citation from the 1960’s or 1970’s?

    A point: you used the present tense in your claim.

    But at any rate, another 10 minutes with Google, and I find that the two-parent requirement was passed in 2001, in response to child abductions as the result of custody disputes. Prior to that, looks like there was no such requirement. Where are you getting your information?

  46. avatar
    NbC November 17, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    Custody and control.

    Nuff said my dear confused Sven

  47. avatar
    NbC November 17, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    Do some of your own homework… Or are you too lazy to support your fantasies.

  48. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 17, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    I’m thinking the US State Dept was concerned the Hague Convention may come into play since BO’s father was listed as African.

    So, Stanley Ann circumvented any questions the US State Dept may have had by having Soetoro adopt BO since BO Sr provided no financial or emotional suupport.

    Soetoro shows up at the passport office and consents to the issuance of the passport.

  49. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    I’m thinking you’re making stuff up. I’m thinking you’re smoking too much peyote, and that it’s making you delusional.

    There’s no evidence that Obama was adopted. There’s no evidence that the State Department was concerned about anything. There’s no evidence Stanley Ann had to circumvent any questions. There’s no evidence that both parents were required to sign for passports in the 60s and 70s. There’s no evidence that Soetoro showed up at the passport office. There’s no evidence that Soetoro consented to the issuance of a passport.

    What evidence do you have, Sven? Other than your own fevered imaginings?

  50. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    I’m thinking the US State Dept was concerned the Hague Convention

    Which Hague Convention? The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction? That Hague Convention? The one that was negotiated in 1980 and went into force in 1983.

    For those playing at home, Obama returned to the US in 1971.

  51. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 17, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It is nearly impossible for a single mother to obtain a US passport for a minor when the biological father is absent.

    Actually its quite easy.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    Sven,

    You tempt me sorely to ban you, and if I do, there is no appeal.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I wonder if the Fed Law in 1965 is different from the Fed Law of 2009?

    I wonder if you give a rats ass what the law is, or whether you just like to create chaos.

  54. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    “Now I am DEMANDING you prove that you didn’t kill Olof Palme.”

    And I am demanding you prove that you were not with Glenn Beck, when he raped and murdered that girl in 1990.

    Prove it, or I will attach this to every post you make.

  55. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    “I’m thinking the US State Dept was concerned the Hague Convention may come into play”

    I’m thinking you were with Glenn Beck in 1990. I’m thinking you helped Glenn Beck cover up his rape and murder. I’m thinking Ann Coulter is a tranny. I’m thinking you are either in need of thorazine, or you are clinically insane, or just took too much peyote.

    I’m thinking you are a cretin.

  56. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    “So its okay for me to assume that Sven is an agent provacatuer of China or Iran.”

    Or the Mossad. Or maybe birthers are just plain cretins, or clinically insane like Orly.

    So, when is Orly going to have a breakdown, and be involuntarily committed?

  57. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Sven, is it true you actually raped and murdered that girl in 1990, and not Glenn Beck?

  58. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Visitation rights trumps Sole Custody.

    In what alternate universe?

    The Obamas divorced in 1964. Obama’s father moved back to Kenya in 1965. He never visited his son once between the date of the divorce decree and the date when Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro. More importantly, the divorce decree placed no restrictions on where Stanley Ann and her son could live.

    It’s apparent that you have no regard for the truth and that you just make this stuff up. I’ve no doubt that most birthers believe your crap, because they buy into anything which feeds their prejudices and they can’t be bothered to do any fact-checking. Fortunately, that isn’t the case here.

  59. avatar
    Mary Brown November 18, 2009 at 12:57 am #

    To get him into school. There is no evidence that change was legal. And please, I know of children using the name of a step parent who has neve adapted them.

  60. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 18, 2009 at 2:37 am #

    Reasonable doubt isn’t even the standard in a civil case. It’s a preponderance of the evidence. That means whether something is more likely than not, and it’s the lowest of the burdens of proof (for a verdict) in our judicial system. The second is Clear and Convincing. And the highest is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Oh, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to be provided by the person accusing them, not the person defending. So, if you’re saying that Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, it’s on you to prove that fact, not Obama to prove that he is.

    If the birthers want the burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, so much the better. The burden of proof is still on them. All that means is that they have a higher burden of proof.

  61. avatar
    Lupin November 18, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    It’s all too obvious that, for Sven and John, what’s wrong here is that President Obama is a n*gg*r and that shouldn’t be allowed.

    They are one very short step away from quoting from George Gordon’s Prescript (look it up) to bolster their position. They would if they could.

    As President Grant and Benjamin Franklin Butler eventually found out, trying to talk sense into people like them is a waste of time. The only thing they understand is bringing the full force of the Law upon them.

  62. avatar
    misha November 18, 2009 at 5:25 am #

    I did google it. You’re correct. They just use code words instead.

  63. avatar
    misha November 18, 2009 at 5:40 am #

    “I know of children using the name of a step parent who has neve adapted them.”

    I legally took my step-father’s name, but he never adopted me. When I announced plans to marry outside the faith, he asked me to give up his surname.

  64. avatar
    Greg November 18, 2009 at 6:47 am #

    I’ve researched the issue, reading such articles as Islamic Law in Indonesia (3 Islamic L & Soc’y 382, 1998) and The Supreme Court and Adat Inheritance Law in Indonesia (11 Am. J. Comp. L. 205, 1962). Formal adoptions were rare in Indonesia. Informal adoptions under Adat law were much more common. Adat law is like regional, or tribal law, different to each ethnic/religious sub-group.

    It is much more likely that Obama was NOT formally adopted than he was.

    But, neither formal nor informal adoption would have any impact on his US Citizenship!

  65. avatar
    Lupin November 18, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    This is the link if you want to actually read it:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6O_XYBMhNYAC&lpg=PA38&ots=fMf0ocKh3O&dq=George%20Gordon%20Prescript%20Order%20Klan&pg=PA409#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Page 421, the Second Qualifying Interrogatory is: Are you a native-born, white, Gentile American citizen?

    Note also on Page 428 the definition of patriotism as “uncompromising standard of pure Americanism untrammeled by alien influences and free from the entanglements of foreign alliances…”

    One might be reading Donofrio.

    The “Prerequisites to Citizenship” (Page 429) are: “Only native-born American citizens who believe in the tenets of the Christian religion and owe no allegiance of any degree or nature to any foreign Government, nation… are eligible”

    Why, this could be written by Mario, minus the bedsheets!

    (And as I often said, Jews need not apply.)

    There is more but I’m tired of quoting this garbage.

    I’ve been saying that the driving force behind the birthers is overwhelmingly racism and I think this proves it.

  66. avatar
    Lupin November 18, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    In case I didn’t make myself clear, it is obvious that according to their “Law”:

    NATIVE-BORN = WHITE

    Hence in the minds of the birthers, Obama will NEVER EVER be Native-Born.

    QED.

  67. avatar
    Mike November 18, 2009 at 8:18 am #

    Doc: it may look nice, but to my mind, Berg’s more impressive achievement is disproving an old saying and showing that, yes, in fact, you can polish a turd.

  68. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    So, Stanley Ann circumvented any questions the US State Dept may have had by having Soetoro adopt BO since BO Sr provided no financial or emotional suupport.

    Soetoro shows up at the passport office and consents to the issuance of the passport.

    It’s fascinating that you don’t even bother to consider how your ridiculous theories undercut your own prior arguments.

    If you bothered to do any research at all, you would realize that Lolo Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia a full year before Obama and his mother moved there, which would have made it difficult for Lolo to appear at the passport office in Hawaii.

    More importantly, if your theory is correct, it means that Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama in Hawaii, before Obama got his passport. This would mean that the elusive adoption records and name change records would be in Hawaii – so why hasn’t anyone been able to find them?

  69. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 18, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    misha: “So its okay for me to assume that Sven is an agent provacatuer of China or Iran.”Or the Mossad. Or maybe birthers are just plain cretins, or clinically insane like Orly.So, when is Orly going to have a breakdown, and be involuntarily committed?

    Did you know newspapers in Iran have claimed that birtherism was started and is still supported by the Mossad? There was a big hullabaloo at Wikipedia whether that should be mentioned on the Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories page when one Russian newspaper mentioned rhe claim (basically treating it as a joke). Wikipedia still does not mention it, however.

  70. avatar
    misha November 18, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Which amplifies what I have been saying about Orly: she is willing to get into bed, figuratively and literally, with anti-Semites because of her pathological hatred of Obama.

    She makes nice with militias, which are vicious racists, in the hopes she can encourage a lone wolf. And she ignores they will turn on her, when she is no longer useful.

  71. avatar
    Benji Franklin November 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    Dear Misha,

    Perhaps Orly is the victim of poor parenting. She needed to be told, “Orly, when you LIE down with a dis-barred lawyer, you may get up with something seminal, but it probably won’t be a Supreme Court Decision.”

    Benji Franklin

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    The Israel Insider web site was one of the earliest to declare the COLB a forgery, 9 days after it was published.

    See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/where-did-born-in-africa-start-part-1/

  73. avatar
    DickWhitman November 18, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    If Barack released his Form DS-3, then we would know definitively if Lolo consented or if Stanley Ann’s provided an explanation as to why BO Sr. could not consent.

    It would be very helpful if Barack would release his Form DS-4080.

  74. avatar
    Scientist November 18, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    Folks, I’ve done some pondering on this “natural born citizen” thing. What does it mean? I consulted the scholars-Taitz, Berg, Donofrio- but their answers didn’t really convince me. Then, just a few minutes ago, I was looking in the Yellow Pages for the phone # for my favorite natural food store and right there on the previous page were people advertizing “natural childbirth”. And then it hit me like a freight train-these babies are citizens born naturally or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. And of course all the founding fathers and early Presidents were naturally born, since no one back them was born in a hospital.

    So, it doesn’t matter whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, nor does it matter who his parents were. All that matters is was he naturally born? And I’m afraid the answer is no. One side says Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, the other says Coast Hospital in Mombasa. But it doesn’t matter, both are HOSPITALS. So, we have a problem. Actually it’s a big problem, since as far as I know, Biden, Pelosi and everyone else in the line of succession were born in hospitals. So were McCain and Palin. And so were all the Presidents since Reagan.

    So I can only conclude the only possible legitimate President right now is Reagan and he’s dead. So, what do we do now?

  75. avatar
    Scientist November 18, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    DickWhitman: If Barack released his Form DS-3, then we would know definitively if Lolo consented or if Stanley Ann’s provided an explanation as to why BO Sr. could not consent.It would be very helpful if Barack would release his Form DS-4080.

    Helpful? You mean that would get health care for the uninsured, solve global warming or advance the efforts against the Taliban? You grossly mis-understand the job of President. It’s not to “release” non-existent forms that some fool imagines might exist, it’s to deal with the needs of the country for F-sakes. What the hell is wrong with you?

  76. avatar
    misha November 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    Brilliant.

    I might add that my cat does qualify as natural born. His mother was not given any narcotics, and he was born in a manger garage, right here in Philly.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubereye/sets/72157605641599877/

  77. avatar
    Scientist November 18, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Well, if your cat is really an American cat (not Persian or Siamese) then perhaps he could do the job. Since almost all humans lately have been born in hospitals, the position might have to remain vacant otherwise.

  78. avatar
    misha November 18, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    “It would be very helpful if Barack would release his Form DS-4080.”

    It would be very helpful if Barack would prove, once and for all, that he is not a runaway slave.

    The only way he can do this, is release his DS 4080, along with the rest of the papers demanded by his critics.

    It also would be very helpful if Glenn Beck would release his criminal record abstract, and put to rest the rumor that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, and that Sven Magnussen was with him.

  79. avatar
    SFJeff November 18, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    Dick/Sven is funny.

  80. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    A “birther scorecard” put together by the folks at Politijab has been published on Scribd, complete with links to the available rulings.

    Original Court Cases: Constitution 54, Birthers 0, 2 FOIA cases pending

    Appellate Court Cases: Constitution 16, Birthers 0, 6 cases pending

    Supreme Court Cases: Constitution 9, Birthers 0, no cases pending

    Also, for the claims that Obama has spent millions to fight these lawsuits, it’s been determined that Obama retained attorneys in only three cases: Berg v. Obama, Hollister v. Soetoro, and Keyes v. Bowen.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22707260/Birther-Case-List-0-54-As-Of-November-17-2009

  81. avatar
    wendy November 18, 2009 at 11:43 pm #

    orly needs to focus on retaking the bar exam (assuming she ever really took it, to start with).