2/3/09 Cathari Commentary: Update on Anderson Amicus Brief--It Has Now Been Filed and PDF is Available

Introductory Commentary
Concerning Potential Ramifications of the below Synopsis of the Amicus Brief to Berg v. Obama and the DNC, et al

Why the Obama Ineligibility Issue Should Now be Reset back to Election 2008, and Not Left to Congress This Time....

by Cathari

Earlier postings follow below the synopsis of the Amicus Brief, with discussion as further reference of potential impact if a writ of certiorari had been issued, and now quo warranto is at issue; also, reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court has taken considerable care in the handling of the Berg v Obama and the DNC, et al case, where it was referred back then to the 3rd District Court (PA), where now the below referenced Amicus Brief was filed. It would appear from the below points, that the U.S. Attorney General should have initiated an action himself, once he could see for himself that from every point involving the Electoral College, to the Joint Session of Congress, and the absence of Dick Cheney's request whether there were "any dissents" concerning the approval of the official count of the Electors' report. It does not require a citizen to file such a complaint. And, yet, Obama deferred and seems to have been supported by a Democrat Congress in the deferment of the "standing of a citizen" to file a grievance at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court System.

That is, by claiming in his response to the original filing of Berg v. Obama and the DNC et al, simply that Berg had no standing as a citizen, Obama deferred this issue, and it appears that so did others who knew even the potential that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for U.S. President, and only after inauguration was Berg "allowed" standing by the U.S. Supreme Court--by holding his case active until after the inauguration, so that it then could go back to the 3rd Court with no further question there before inauguration of "citizen standing". This, from other reports taken together, appears to involve a deep, political conspiracy by some Democrats, at least, to keep Obama online for inauguration--so that later if he is disqualified by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress can confirm his V.P. as the "new President". Americans are not going to buy this, on either side of the political spectrum simply because they will realize that Obama defrauded them--to get their votes in the first place....unless Obama can produce a true vault birth certificate proving he is "natural born" as an American citizen. If he cannot, then, we have a serious issue for America today, and America's future.

I do believe personally--still--that this specific issue today, therefore, should be reset to the General Election 2008 status of law/rules--because if, after reading and considering the ramifications of the Amicus Brief, it follows logically that there might also have been a true conspiracy by certain Democrats involved (see effects in discussion 1/16/09 posting below concerning what happens potentially if a writ of certiorari were to have been issued), where there might have been political pressuring of the Electoral College to finally submit all their State electoral votes, when at first by 1/2/09 at least, only 24 States were reported by "investigating obama .com" online as having reported, with only one State reporting a count simply of "present" (Indiana)--where the deadline for reporting was on Dec. 15, 2008; by 1/8/09 all States had then, finally, reported their Electoral Votes. Then for some reason Pelosi interrupted Cheney by clapping and stirring her hands repeatedly in a caldron of air, to cue and generate a rousing cheer and applause from the Joint Congress, such that the question of "dissenting opinions" was in effect "denied" by Pelosi herself--if this was a conspiracy carried out, also ABOUT keeping Obama online until after the Inauguration in order to MAINTAIN a Democrat President (i.e. Biden)--America is also NOT going to buy this, either.

Therefore, it continues to be my personal, citizen opinion, that the Election 2008 for President, should be reset in accordance with the time of the "error" in the lack of vetting before the General Election, and lack of Obama producing on his own, his birth certificate for vetting--should he afterall, have a true "natural born" evidence of American citizenship. If there was a conspiracy, and it should be investigated to find out pending other lawsuits about this issue, automatically naming Biden a "new President" should not now become a "reward" for the Democrat Congress to get to keep automatically, their "Democrat Executive Branch" intact, following such a potential conspiracy indeed, to get Obama INAUGURATED before the truth would come out about Obama's true lack of "natural born" Constitutional standing for the office of U.S. President. It should also more importantly, not become a way of defeating other candidates for the office of President from any political party.

Below, then, is the segway into a synopsis of the Amicus Brief, but please read the entire document for yourself, so that it becomes true knowledge now for American citizens--why Berg v. Obama and the DNC, et al has continued to be active first on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, and now referred, after the inauguration, back for further review and serious consideration by the 3rd Circuit Court in PA, where it originated prior to Election 2008, when repeatedly Obama was not vetted for the office--not by the media as we'd always seen previously when even in this election "Joe the Plummer" and "Gov. Sarah Palin" herself was vetted viciously by the media--but no word on Obama.... Government groups in the States, even with objections raised in lawsuits by the ELECTORS, did not vet Obama during the Primaries and certainly not before the General Election 2008.

_________________

So far, the writ of certiorari requested by Philip Berg has been denied; now the Amicus Brief raises the issue of quo warranto. Berg v Obama and the DNC et al was not dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and instead was held until after the inauguration of Obama, and then was referred back to the 3rd Circuit Court in Pennsylvania where it had originated, and where it is still active for further review. Associated with Berg v Obama now, the Anderson Amicus Brief was filed and the 23-page PDF can be downloaded at this url:

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-...

The attorney In Support of the Petitioner Bill Anderson as Court's Amicus is:
Lawrence J. Joyce, Esq.
Tucson, Arizona

In addition to the Motion to File "A Brief Amicus Curiae" (as Friend of the Court), was also a Motion for Waiver of Rule 37(2)(A), etc.

Excerpts of Motion to File Amicus Brief:

"The Court has in fact recognized that the amicus has an interest in this type of case....

"Your amicus submits that it will not be possible for this Court to dispose of this case properly without considering the following points which either have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or which have not been adequately discussed:

Briefed points are three:

"1.) This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and,

"2.) The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, crises that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and,

"3.) With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loguitur [the thing speaks for itself]."

Note: Berg v. Obama and the DNC et al originally was denied by the 3rd Circuit Court on the grounds of "lack of standing" of Philip Berg. Following the Inauguration, although the U.S. Supreme Court denied the requested writ of certiorari, which would have demanded the requested proof documents related to Barack Obama's birth circumstances, and also his citizen status as a student in U.S. colleges and universities, and so on; the case was not dismissed at that point and "with standing" after the formal inauguration of Obama, it was referred back to the 3rd Circuit Court. Thus, the amicus addresses among other points and information in his brief, the issue of standing for such a federal case by Berg. This issue was first raised as an objection, in the response to Berg's case originally at the 3rd Circuit Court, and effectively it silenced the case until--after the inauguration, because the 3rd Circuit Court dismissed the case, and it then was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it remained active on the docket, even after some others were denied hearings.

Regarding the Motion for Waiver of Rule 37(2)(A), from the Amicus Brief:

"With respect to Rule 37(2)(A) of this Court, requiring notice to all parties at least ten days prior to filing an amicus brief, the amicus requests waiver of that Rule on the grounds that the point stated above concerning the aspect of this case which is analogous to res ipsa loquitur did not occur to counsel for the amicus at all until November 24, 2008; the amicus would not have sought to file this brief without that argument because counsel is of the opinion that that point is of such importance to this Court's full consideration of this case and to addressing the needs of justice that it justifies a waiver of this Court's rule. In the alternative, the amicus requests that this Court at least accept Argument II B. of this brief, which deals specifically with that point...."

Named as respondents receiving information about the filing request of this waiver motion are: respondents Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission: Gregory G. Garre. Also, Diane Feinstein (Chairman) of the Rules and Administration Committee. And respondent Pedro A Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (i.e., Secretary of State, PA).

"Wherefore, the amicus requests a waiver of Rule 37(2)(A) of this Court and for leave of this Court to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the petitioner either in toto or subject to such restrictions as this Court may deem proper."

Briefly listed below are the substantive Arguments:

1.) "Petitioner Meets The Constitutional Element of Standing:
'in a sense--in a very important sense--every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in . . . having only qualified officers execute the law.' United States v. Newman, 238 U.S. 537, 547, 35 S.Ct. 881, 883, 59 L.Ed. 1446, 1450 (1915)...."

2.) "The Prudential Limits On Standing Must Be Considered in Light Of The Following Issues
"A. There Is No Adequate And Satisfactory Remedy Following Inauguration"

"....With respect to quo warranto, this Court said in Newman that an interest such as this petitioner does have, '... is to be represented by the Attorney General or the district attorney, who are expected by themselves or those they authorize to institute quo warranto proceedings against usurpers in the same way that they are expected to institute proceedings against any other violator of the law.'"...

"In 1984 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized that there are times when relying on the Attorney General to perform his obligations faithfully concerning quo warranto can be an absurdity. The Court said, 'The Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegeman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court.'"....

The argument continues in the document, including the point that Obama could be "blackmailed" under the conditions involved in an illegitimate "presidency", and quoted from the document, "military officers sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, must not be placed in a situation in which they cannot say with absolute certainty whether the person claiming to be the Commander-in-Chief legitimately holds the office or not, for another."

The argument also discusses that "only the names of candidates for elector" are discussed in the Constitution, and not the presidential candidates... "Thus, one could not neven expect to find a provision in the Constitution requiring that someone being voted on for President by the electors would first have to affirmatively prove his eligibility to anybody...."

"B.) This Case Presents An Issue Analogous To the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loguitur [the thing speaks for itself]"

In this section, the document discusses factors concerning the fact that Barack Obama could have presented his original vault birth certificate at any time and did not. Included is the point made that around the internet for over a year, this issue has been discussed and debated by people observing that Obama has effectively silenced and hidden anything about his true birth origins, and that he has not provided the true "certificate". (We all know that the "Certification of Live Birth" presented originally at his campaign site, did not even provide the crucial information as to where he was born, what hospital and what doctor, etc., and is not a "true birth certificate" such as every American must produce in order to get a passport, and a driver's license.) The law citation for this section: Byrne v. Broadle, Court of Exchequer, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (1863).

Finally on Page 22, is an Appendix of the District of Columbia Code, Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States

#16-3501. Includes: "A quo warranto may be issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the U.S. or a public office of the U.S. civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action."

#16-3502....
#16-3503. Includes: "If the Attorney General or U.S. attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs."


Notes and Commentary included above, written by Cathari.

___________________

Prior posting on this topic of the Amicus Brief connected with Berg v. Obama and the DNC, et al.

On 1/16/2009 the Following Was Posted by Cathari concerning this Anderson Amicus Brief:

A Brief Analysis of the "Amicus Brief".

The Supreme Court granted the amicus brief (friend of the court) and denied the stay [possibly until 1/21/09 based on second report on request for writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama] because there is a bigger problem. This issue (e.g. granting writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama) will not only affect Obama, but it will likely impact Biden (Vice President Elect) as well since he was involved and current Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and any other person who is the successor in line to be President because they have knowledge of the fraud and complied with it (e.g. current democratic leadership). The people supporting Obama know the U.S. has a problem and that is why coup de’tat are so effective, but what is critical is that THE MILITARY KNOWS, AND ARE ON GUARD NOT TO FOLLOW ANY ORDERS FROM AN INELIGIBLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

That is why the Supreme Court is being extra cautious here in which they should because there is a possibility of another American civil war. The investigations on all levels are going to impact a whole lot of people who will need to be removed from serving in a federal capacity. This will likely be an Al Capone fete in bringing this down once all of this goes through.

-------------
1/16/2009: Update of Berg's Injunction -- Another Report Earlier...

TRSoL, http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2839/, relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.

TRSoL attorney analyses put Berg's case and potentially others in the "alive and very well" category and fit together to potentially provide significant insight into how the SCOTUS is approaching this. Reading the entire analysis by these attorneys would be very insightful for those interested in details about the cases, and how the SCOTUS might determine their actions and process of resolution of the lawsuits concerning Obama's eligibility issue under our Constitution.

It has also been noted that it took a 5 of 9 majority to accept the Anderson amicus brief (as friend of the court), to the Berg v. Obama lawsuit.

Amidst this analysis, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court might find fraudulent activities in Congress, regarding their treatement of Obama as a certifiably eligible presidential candidate.