In the comment section of a previous post, Jim wrote:
jeleasure said...
Christine!!!!!
Check this story out.
This is from Sean Osborn of the North East Intelligence Network.
Obama Must Provide a Vaulted Copy by 1 December 2008
What is different now is the fact that the situation no longer involves Berg vs. Obama. With Justice Souter requiring the vault long official COLB to be shown to him at the U.S. Supreme Court, it has now become a case of the U.S. Supreme Court vs. Obama!
From NEIN blog:
[Update: Update 10 November 2008: Three items of direct relevance to this subject were just brought to my attention. First item is the draft of a WeThePeople Foundation full-page ad to be published inUSA TODAY the week of November 17, 2008. The second item is a petition to the Federal Election Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States which citizen patriots can sign (anonymously if desired) and submit to become personally engaged in this issue.]
"...has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.
[Note: Update at 6:27 p.m. PT:
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Judge Surrick, who presides over the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, must respond to the Writ of Certiorari (sur-shee-uh-rare-eye) by providing to SCOTUS Justice Souter all documents and court proceedings in the case of Berg v. Obama. The crux of the matter here is that Obama (et al.) filed only a motion to dismiss on the grounds on Phil Berg's "lack of standing" to file the lawsuit. No information countering Berg's allegations or challenges to Obama's status as a natural born citizen were addressed. Judge Surrick agreed with the Obama motion and dismissed the case due to Berg's "lack of standing." Justice Souter will most certainly see the specific challenge to Obama's eligibilty pursuant to the Constitutional requirement for president and subsequently may then issue an order for Obama (et al.) to submit docmentation proving his natural born citizenship status to Judge Surrick, or to provide them directly to the SCOTUS.]
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reasons. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."
Obama isn't getting out of this one!
I have previously expressed concern over the premature briefings that Obama is being allowed to attend with the Bush Admin. Sounds like a serious mistake to me!
Here is a copy of the rest of Sean Osborne's blog post:
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reasons. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.
Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.
The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature.
Note this additional comment. It points out that Obama is not OFFICIALLY President-elect until "the Electoral College electors cast their ballots on 15DEC08."
Sean Osborne:
I definitely need to expound for everyone on the very profound implications of what I have written in this NEIN Blog entry.
First, look at and read carefully the words seen in the image. [Note - it reads: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.] What is stated there is the function of the federal judiciary, particularly and pentultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no higher leagal authority in the U.S. Government.
Obama [or his lawyer(s)] MUST respond no later than 1 DEC to the SCOTUS-granted Writ of Certiorari.
VERY, VERY FEW writs of this type are ever granted by SCOTUS.
This writ was granted due to some very compelling reasons - the number one reason hinges on whether Obama is Constitutionally elibible to hold the office of POTUS.
Obama MUST respond NLT 01DEC08.
Obama has two options in his response.
1. Tell the SCOTUS to take a flying leap by repeating his non-response to the federal court in PA or by asking for dismissal.
This is NOT a viable option for Obama to take. Remember your elementary, high school and college-level "Government 101" class education on the three co-equal branches of our government. Would Obama dare to tick-off deluxe the currently Conservative majority in the SCOTUS? He might, but, again, that course of action is highly inadvisable. I can conceive that should Obama flip the court the bird that the SCOTUS would then hold Obama in contempt and subpoena his vault birth certificate from the State of Hawai'i. Then the fight would really be on.
2. Comply and provide exactly what is requested of him in the Writ.
Obama is between a rock and a hard place IF there is no legal proof that he was born in Hawai'i. Evidence and legal proceedings to date strongly indicate that this is the fact of the matter.
Barack Obama IS NOT the President-elect. NOT YET. Obama does not become President-elect until the Electoral College electors cast their ballots on 15DEC08.
Which occurs first - Supreme Court proceedings, of the Electoal College voting?
The Electoral College electors in the various states do not have to vote for Obama. They can cast their votes for whomever they choose for both President and Vice President.
As I sstated the 2008 election process is not over- it is still very much an active process - with key Constitutional issues before the Supreme Court of the land.
So why is NO ONE in the MSM talking about this???
Why...INDEED!
Answer: Because they are the "Media of Mass Deception" - THAT'S WHY! However, in this case they are being also guilty of being "The Media of Omission" when it comes to anything that is negative news about Obama!
I was curious to see how many others blogs, message boards and forums were discussing this development. So, I typed into the search: "Obama vault COLB proof Dec 1."
Several hours ago, the search turned up 638 possible matches.
Since it has been a busy Sunday for me, I haven't gotten the chance to get through many of the pages. However, there are some good links on the first three pages.
Just now, I was curious to see what came up when I took out the word "vault." Got 2,020 matches this time.
There are probably lots of combinations of key words that can be typed in.
One thing is certain. Word is spreading about this - and this time Obama must comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's request.
HT: Jim Leasure of Journaling for Growth
The NEIN blog
*******
Update: Another great post about this is found over at Citizen Wells
*******
UPdate: Digg story.
*******
UPdate on 11/10/08 @ 8:30 a.m. PT
The more digging I do on this subject - the more evidence arises that IS SO VERY DISTURBING!!!
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS POST:
Judge Surrick Received the Decision He Issued
Excerpt:
In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.
A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.
Here's a link to the blow-up copy of the fax:
Surrick's Ruling Fax Copy
Excerpt continued:
At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.
From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.
Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?
Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.
Continue reading HERE
People...THIS IS GETTING REALLY FRIGHTENING and doesn't smell right - AT ALL!!! I have been thinking all along, but hesitant to say a particular word. But more and more evidence of legal manipulations and illegal thugary is revealing a HUGE CONSPIRACY behind the Obama campaign!
*******
FYI Update:
What is a Writ of Certiorari?
A writ of certiorari is a writ, or order, sent from a higher court to a lower one which orders the lower court to turn over transcripts and documents related to a specific case for review. In general, a writ of certiorari is issued by the highest court in a nation after a request from a petitioner. The decision to grant such a writ is made at judicial discretion.
The term comes from a Latin word which means “to be ascertained” or “to make certain.” A writ of certiorari is one of the ways in which a high court can review a case. When a petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari, the request must include an explanation of why the petitioner is resorting to a writ. The request must also indicate what in the case is under dispute, so that justices are aware of what they are being asked to review.
When a request for a writ of certiorari is submitted to a high court, clerks review it before passing it on to the justices. The justices vote on which cases shall be granted writs. In the United States, less than 5% of the requests for a writ of certiorari are granted, due to the high volume of requests and the busy court schedule. In Supreme Court shorthand, this is a “Cert. Denied.” When a writ is denied, it does necessarily mean that the higher court approves of the actions of the lower court, and the denial cannot be viewed as the court's final statement on the issue.
Since most high courts are responsible for interpreting and defending national constitutions and the law, justices tend to grant writs for controversial cases, or cases which may set a precedent. Once a lower court has been served with a writ of certiorari, it must turn the requested material over to the higher court. After review, the justices offer a decision on the material, either affirming the decision of the lower court, or rejecting it. In most cases, and majority and minority both submit a written opinion of the case.
Petitioners should consider a writ of certiorari a technique of last resort. Since the writ must include a reason why the petitioner has no other avenue of redress, it is important to explore all of the ways in which a legal problem can be addressed before submitting it to the highest court. In most nations, the judicial system has a tiered appeals process which should be followed first, in addition to other legal means which a lawyer may suggest.
Written by S.E. Smith
(bold mine)