Saturday, December 13, 2008

Ideas for demonstration slogans from Mr. Markham Robinson

To All,

We need short, pointed, true slogans for signs. Please give us your suggestions.

My proposals.

Ø Constitution Not Just a Technicality!

Ø President Natural Born for Good Reason!

Ø Obama Kenyan, Omani, Indonesian or Brit?

Ø Show Us Full Original Certificate!
How Hard Can It Be?

Ø Obama, What Are You Hiding?!
Show Us Your Birth Certificate!

Ø Electors Vote Obey Your Oath,
Only Natural Born Presidents


File with the FCC - A Matter of National Security

Call to action.

I just went to the FCC website and filed a complaint. I think the more people complaining the more likely we will get some action.

People should also write a letter and print out affidavits on Orly's site and overnight to the FCC.


To file a complaint online.

1. Go to
2. Click on the link Filing a Complaint on left side of page closer to bottom.
3. Click on Broadcast.
4. Click on Unauthorized.
5. Fill in Form.

What I typed in comment box at end. (I think there is only space for 500 characters.)

Matter of National Security

I have seen all of the MSM national outlets commit felony fraud by saying that Barack Obama's Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is a legitimate document, when it is not. Not one document expert has looked at this document and confirmed its authenticity. I have a signed affidavit that was filed in the Berg v. Obama Citizenship lawsuit that asserts the document is a complete fraud. In addition, all of the MSMs fail to tell their audience that Hawaii law allowed registration of foreign births.




Evidence of shady business dealings between Obama and Blagojevich

Thanks to the criminal complaint of FBI Special Agent David Crain, we now have a lot more evidence of shady behavior by Obama in the Blagjoevich affair. Obama is believed to have offered Blagojevich a "quid pro quo" after two years in office. It appears as though Blagojevich was willing to appoint Obama's choice to his vacant Senate seat in exchange for a good paying job for Blagojevich or his wife, or other considerations. See this article yesterday for more details.

Robert Stevens.

Some are planning to protest on Monday

Some groups are planning to protest on Monday at the State capitols. Some are planning to bring signs: "Obama is not eligible for Presidency" "Natural born Citizen-is one that was born in US to 2 parents, that are US citizens" "Obama's father was a foreigner- he doesn't qualify as a natural born Citizen"

Even Pravda

Interestingly, even Pravda has been publishing some startling articles detailing the Obama Eligibility Controversy:

*Obama Conspiracy Nuts

*Barack, The Amazing Mr. Obama

*Obama Has NOT Been Elected President

*Obama The Chicken

What does that say about the American Mainstream Media, when a lot of this material appears in foreign publications, but not in US publications? After all, the story about his illegal alien grandmother who was illegally on US public assistance in Boston for the last several years was first broken in a UK paper. Amazing. Where is the US media in all this? Are they not supposed to be our watchdog?

Robert Stevens

Essence of Military Action

Essence of the Military action
Mr. Turner
the case will have just one count. Natural born citizen, is one that was born in this country to two US citizens. His father was not a US citizen, and therefor he is illegitimate for presidency. Additionally there is no corroborative evidence of him being born in HI, since HI statue 338-176, 338-178 allow Hawaiian residence to register in Hi their children born abroad and the HI birth certification can be issued based on a statement of one relative only. Regardless of where he was born, he is not a natural born citizen.
Military personal that is in active duty or retired that can be called to active duty will be seeking declaratory relief to pronounce Obama not eligible for the position of President and Commander in Chief and therefor active members of the military or retired members that can be recalled to active duty are under no obligation to take orders from Barack Hussein Obama, as Commander in Chief.

Urgent! What needs to be done now

There are a number of things you can do:

1. write to all 9 US Supreme Court justices in support of Lightfoot v Bowen, docket number 08A524

2. become a correspondent on my blog 

3. Very important!!! write an open letter to US att in Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald, cc US att in DC Mike McCuskey, cc General Director of FBI, cc FBI in all the states and demand immediate indictments of Obama on massive fraud for following reasons:

a. he is not a natural born citizen (his father was a foreign subject, he doesn't qualify as a natural born, since both parents have to be citizens at the time of the child's birth in order to qualify as a natural born citizen, see Law of Nations ), he became a candidate on the ballot by fraud

b. fraud committed in collecting $650 million under false pretenses

c. lying under oath while being sworn as an attorney in Illinois (stated that he had no other names, concealed his identities, since he went by Barry Obama and Barry Soetoro)

d. Contact the FBI and US attorney's office, and assert that they need to investigate immediately expert reports showing that his selective service certificate is forged

e. Instruct the FBI and US Attorney's office that they need to subpoena his original birth certificate and investigate reports that the short form "certification of live birth" that Obama presented to the public appears to have been altered, fake or "forged".

f. The FBI and the US Attorney's office needs to subpoena medical records, coroners reports and death certificates for his grandmother Madelyn Dunham and has mother Stanley Ann Dunham (aka Obama, aka Soetoro, aka Sutoro aka Anna Toot) and investigate why the mother's deceased social security number 535-40-8522 shows as active as late as 2006, when she allegedly died in 1995. It shows 2 addresses in HI and 2 addresses in NY.

Please call FBI and US attorney's office and demand daily updates, as to when the indictments will be forthcoming. Those have to be issued ASAP, before Jan 20, 2009. You should also contact your state attorney general's office.

4. you can forward my pleadings in Lightfoot v Bowen and footage of 12.08.08. press conference at the National Press club to all the congressmen, senators, media and your friends and family. Thank you for willingness to help.

Contact Information

United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300

United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
308 W. State St., Ste 300
Rockford, IL 61101
Phone: (815) 987-4444

Correspondence to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to

For the Illinois Attorney General, addresses and phone numbers are here. You can email the Illinois Attorney General's office by using this contact form.

Contact the FBI.

Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq

Friday, December 12, 2008

Coordinated Efforts for Contacting the FCC

A number of people want to write open letters to FCC. Who wants to be involved in this project? If you do, please contact our Petitioner, Ms. Pamela Barnett, from Lightfoot v Bowen filing. She is spearheading this project. Email Pam.

Lightfoot v Bowen Now On SCOTUS Docket

Lightfoot v Bowen, filed in the Supreme Court, is now Docket #08A524. Justice Anthony Kennedy will review it first. Volunteers, we will need help. Please call, fax and write to show support for this case.

In regards to military Dr. Orly can represent a group of military personal and ex-military, refusing to take orders from illegitimate commander in chief. We need to spread the word and have a large group of military.

See previous post for more details:

How to help Dr. Orly Right Now

News from Washington State

Stephen Pidgeon's case in Washington State, where 14 plaintiffs are suing the Washington Secretary of State Samuel Reed, has received some attention. The judge has agreed to have a hearing on this case, according to the latest rumor.

Robert Stevens

Obama-Blagojevich connection by Joan Swirsky

If Blag Blabs
December 11, 2008
by Joan Swirsky
Beside figuring out how he'll weasel out of his recent arrest - and probable conviction - for trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder, I wonder if the disgraced governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is contemplating the fates of Lee Harvey Oswald, Alexander Litvinenko, Vince Foster, Jim McDougal and Ron Brown - all of whom were summarily disposed of to keep them from talking.

Oswald, we know, was shot by Jack Ruby, a smalltime Dallas nightclub owner with suspected ties to the Mafia. The death effectively cemented the government's case against the odd loner, and precluded any of the theories that tied Fidel Castro or the New Orleans mob or other numbers of people to being implicated in JFK's assassination.

Litvinenko was a former officer of the Russian State security service, turned dissident and writer. After he accused his superiors of assassinating the Russian tycoon Boris Berzovsky, he was arrested but eventually fled to England, where he wrote two books antagonistic to the former USSR. In 2006, he died from radioactive polonium-210, suspected of having been administered by the KGB.

The deaths of Foster (chalked up to suicide), McDougal (chalked up to a heart attack) and Brown (chalked up to a plane crash) joined a long list of mysterious deaths - known as the "Clinton body count" - that took place before and during the Clinton administration.

Foster was found dead in Ft. Marcy Park in Virginia on July 20, 1993. There was a curious absence of blood at the scene and the forensic photographs disappeared. Rumor had it that the conscience-stricken Chief White House Counsel was on the verge of testifying against the president over a scandal involving the Children's Defense Fund.

McDougal was found dead on March 8, 1998, ostensibly of a heart attack, while he was in solitary confinement in an Arkansas jail, having been convicted of 18 felony counts that had to do with bad loans made by the bank he owned, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. He and his wife Susan were financial partners with Bill and Hillary Clinton in real estate dealings that led to the Whitewater scandal. During the case, prosecutor Ken Starr asked for a reduced sentence for McDougal because he was cooperating in the investigation.

Brown, a former DNC Chairman and Clinton's Commerce Secretary, was scheduled to testify in a campaign-finance scandal related to one of his employees, James Huang, who had been a multimillion-dollar fundraiser for the Democrats but was also suspected of funneling money from the Chinese government to the Clinton campaign. In the first week of April, 1996, Brown delayed testifying to travel to Bosnia-Croatia for a trade mission. The plane crashed and all 34 people aboard were killed. Subsequent investigations found a hole in Brown's head, which appeared to be made by a bullet. But the X-rays were stolen (sound familiar?) and the theory that he was murdered because he planned to testify against President Clinton went nowhere.

The Lesson: Dead Men Don't Talk!

Is the self-serving, wheeling-dealing Blagojevich now shaking in his boots as he realizes that the same dirty politics he's been playing for years, with the same thugs and hardball players like convicted felon Tony Rezko, domestic terrorist William Ayers, master manipulator Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and shakedown artist Jesse Jackson - all part of Mayor Richard M. Daley's Chicago Machine - will deal with him in the same draconian ways they've dealt with so many others? After all, the Chicago "body count" is formidable in its own right.

Will Blag promise prosecutors that he'll sing like a canary to save his own hide? Come to think of it, will Rezko?

According to writer Larry Johnson, "Rezko provided the prosecutors information used to build the case against Blagojevich." Johnson goes on to say: "Barack Obama is not sleeping well tonight... I doubt that David Axelrod is sleeping well either...Axelrod had close ties with Blagojevich. He ran his first campaign for the House. He very well may not see the inside of the White House as a Senior Advisor... Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI could be sitting on some other tapes/wiretaps that are damaging to Obama. We also do not know what Rezko is saying at this point nor do we know what Blagojevich and Harris will spill...This scandal is not going away."

If so, is Blag not worrying about a stray bullet or the American version of polonium-210 or a "suicide" notice or untimely "heart attack"? And is Obama not worried that his house of cards will come tumbling down?


Prosecutors of the investigation- led by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald - have called Blagojevich's actions "a political corruption crime spree." Fitzgerald himself called the breadth and depth of charges against the governor "sinister" and "staggering." FBI taps revealed that Blag planned to sell Obama's senate seat for campaign cash, cushy jobs for himself and his wife, and perhaps being named a cabinet secretary in the Obama administration. The following is a tiny sample of the 76-page criminal complaint against 52-year-old Blagojevich and his 48-year-old Chief of Staff, John Harris. These are words Blag was caught saying on wiretaps:

"I've got this thing and it's fxxking golden," he said about his prerogative of appointing a new senator. "And I'm just not giving it up for fxxking nothing. I'm not gonna do it."

"is there a play here, with these guys, with her" [his wife] to work for a firm in Washington or New York at a significantly better salary than she is making now?

Blag wanted to know whether the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) could do something to get his wife a position at Change to Win [seven unions with six million workers] until he, Blagojevich, could take a position there.

Blag discussed the open Senate seat during a two-hour conference call in which various individuals participated....

In the call, he mentioned the Senate seat and the dynamics of a new Presidential administration with the strong contacts that he had in it, and asked: "Can [the President-elect] help in the private sector...where it wouldn't be tied to him?"

Said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant believed to be on the call at that time) were telling him that he had to "suck it up" for two years and do nothing and give this "motherfxxxker [the President-elect] his senator. Fxxk him. For nothing? Fxxk him."

After being told by Advisor A that a "President-elect...can do almost anything he sets his mind to," Blagojevich said that he would appoint "[Senate Candidate 1 [ostensibly Valerie Jarrett, Obama's first choice, and now his Senior Advisor] . . . but if they feel like they can do this and not fxxking give me anything . . . then I'll fxxking go to [Senate Candidate 5]." Note: Candidate 5 is now known to be Jesse Jackson, Jr., currently a Representative from Illinois, who represents the southeast suburbs of Chicago].

Asked an Advisor(s), on November 11, 2008, whether "they" (believed the President-elect and his associates) could get Warren Buffett and others to put $10, $12, or $15 million into the 501(c)(4) organization. Advisor A responded that "they" should be able to find a way to fund the organization."

Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members for editorials critical of the governor in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

Not too subtle. In fact, a prosecutor's dream! And why was Michelle Obama obliquely named on page 64 of Fitzgerald's lawsuit against Blagojevitch, as PajamasMeida has reported?


I haven't mentioned David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and recently appointed Senior Advisor to president-elect Obama. He, too, is a longtime operative in the Chicago Machine. But I have mentioned Blagojevich, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Jackson, and Daley.

Who is missing from this picture? C'mon... guess!

Of course, it's Obama himself, the man who recently dodged a bullet of his own when, last week, the Supreme Court passed on a petition to declare him ineligible for the presidency by virtue of his having failed to produce an authentic, verifiable birth certificate that attests to the fact that he meets one of only three criteria of the U.S. Constitution for the job, namely that he be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Note: Another suit is due to be heard by Justice Scalia on 12.12.08, and several other suits are pending.

What, if any, is the connection between Obama, the convicted felon Rezko, and the soon-to-be-convicted Blagojevich?

On November 23, David Axelrod was asked by a reporter on a Fox affiliate in Chicago if Obama had expressed a preference for his Senate replacement.

"He has not. I know he has talked to the governor," Axelrod said. "There's a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced. And he has a fondness for a lot of them."

But the minute Blag's indictment hit the news, Axelrod said he "misspoke."

Misspoke? In such detail and with such intimate knowledge? As they say in my New York environs: Gimme a break!

James Taranto from the Wall St. Journal wrote: "One of these statements is false, but which one?"

As writer and editor of Newsmax Magazine, David A. Patten, has outlined, the roots of the Blag-Obama-Rezko relationships are long and deep.

Obama's ties to Blag run primarily through Chicago slumlord and felon Tony Rezko.
Rezko helped both Blag and Obama rise in Chicago and Illinois politics.
Obama himself has credited Rezko with helping to his political career.
Rezko raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for both Blag and Obama.
Rezko was Obama's second-largest individual contributor when he began his run for an Illinois state Senate seat in 1995.
Rezko was one of Obama's biggest contributors when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2003 and 2004, and he was a member of Obama's campaign finance committee.
In 2005, as news began to spread that federal authorities were investigating Rezko, Obama bought a house in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood for $1.65 million. Rezko's wife, Rita, paid $625,000 for a lot adjacent to Obama's new home, and the two deals closed on the same day. Seven months later, Rezko's wife sold one-sixth of her lot to Obama for $104,500.
In March 2008, Obama said Rezko had raised up to $250,000 to help underwrite his prior campaigns in Illinois - a much higher figure than had previously been reported.

What what are Rezko;s ties to Blagojevich? Patten reports that:

The FBI says between June 2001 and August 2004, Rezko raised over $1.4 million for Blagojevich's political campaigns, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Rezko hosted Blagojevich's first post-election party at his mansion.
Rezko's June 2008 trial on corruption strongly implicated Blagojevich. Blagojevich allegedly discussed a state job for a donor, after that donor wrote a $25,000 check for his campaign. During the trial, prosecutors maintained that Rezko routinely arranged shakedowns while serving as a top Blagojevich adviser.
In all, prosecutors said, Rezko squeezed various companies for some $7 million in kickbacks. Following his conviction on 16 counts of fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery, Rezko said federal authorities tried to pressure him "to tell the wrong things" about Obama and Blagojevich. The Sun-Times reported prosecutors pushed Rezko to cooperate in the corruption probe against Blagojevich.

So now we know why both Blag and Obama should be quaking. The arrested governor and the president-elect have been connected at the hip for decades!

One e-mailer wrote: "Blagojevitch is bloodless, resentful and ruthless - and a loose cannon! He could very well spill a whole lotta beans on both of the Obamas, in exchange for a lighter sentence from Fitzgerald. He's only out for himself, and if he can shave five years off of a probable 10-year sentence in federal prison by giving up explosive information on the Obama duo, he might just do it."

And, as David Nason has written in The Australian: "The longer this takes, the more the world will learn about the rotten political culture from which Obama has emerged and the more tainted his January 20 inauguration will be. But whatever short-term discomfort Obama might feel from a shakedown merchant stupid enough to get caught on a wiretap, it's a walk in the park compared with the dangers ahead. This was clear when Fitzgerald...made pleas yesterday for anyone with information about corruption in Illinois to come forward. Not satisfied with getting the Governor, Fitzgerald intends to use the Blagojevich scandal to peel back whatever other layers of political corruption in Illinois he can find. Right now, the president-elect is clear. At his press conference, Fitzgerald said there was no evidence of misbehavior from Obama...It will all come down to where the concentric circles around Blagojevich and Obama overlap, but if his past record is any guide, this is where Fitzgerald, who already has the scalps of terrorists, Mafia kingpins and the likes of Conrad Black to his name, will be at his most aggressive."

But one blogger was not so measured: "Barack Obama is now part of a cover up. He needs to be hauled before Congress and made to swear under oath...under the penalty of perjury. These are the same things which got Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton in trouble."


"What do the Clintons have on Obama?" asks Obama supporter Camille Paglia. "I must admit to puzzled disappointment with his recycling of Clinton era veterans, who reek of déjà vu. ...Obama's team may have underestimated the labyrinthine personal interconnections and habit-worn loyalties of that cliquish crew...both Clintons constantly view the world through the milky lens of their own self-interest.

"Given Obama's elaborate deference to the Clintons," Paglia continues, "beginning with his over-accommodation of them at the Democratic convention in August, a nagging question has floated around the Web: What do the Clintons have on him? No one doubts that the Clinton opposition research team was turning over every rock in its mission to propel Hillary into the White House. There's an information vacuum here...."

Indeed, it is well known that Hillary is a good friend of Philip Berg, the Pennsylvania attorney who brought the first birth-certificate lawsuit against Obama. Coincidence?

And is it only me who thinks the timing of Blag's arrest - after a three-year investigation! - is another "coincidence"?

More than one e-mailer has suggested to me that another of Obama's acolytes, Rahm Emanuel - the Illinois Congressman who succeeded Blagojevich in the House and is now Obama's Chief of Staff - may have leaked the Blag scandal to the FBI. But why would he do this? At the Clinton White House, he was initially a senior advisor, then Assistant to the President for Political Affairs, and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy - all lesser positions than the position he has now.

Why? Because loyalty runs deep. As one blogger put it: "I seem to recall Mr. Emanuel was working for the Clintons a few years ago. I guess it pays to have a Deep Throat in the White House if you are Hillary Clinton just waiting for the phone to ring with the words, `Madam President, are you ready for your close-up now?'"

Could we be witnessing a Clinton coup? Why have Obama's cabinet and staff choices been overwhelmingly comprised of Clinton-era leftovers? What do the Clintons have on Obama?

If Obama survives the birth-certificate scandal and the Blag scandal, what other December or January Surprises - intended to sabotage his presidency - can we expect? And who will be pulling them out of her hat?

That will be a moot point if Blag blabs!

Joan Swirsky ( is a New York based author and journalist who can be reached at joansharon@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

How to help Dr. Orly Right Now

Lightfoot v. Bowen

Orly just filed Lightfoot v Bowen in the US Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Justice Anthony Kennedy will review it first. The case has a docket number of 08A524. I suggest that all the volunteers contact the Supreme Court, and particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Lawsuit with Military and ex-Military Plaintiffs

Dr. Orly says: "In regards to military I can represent a group of military personal and ex-military, refusing to take orders from illegitimate commander in chief. We need to spread the word and have a large group of military."

Robert Stevens

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applies to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations & Sovereigns 1759

Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature:
Applies to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations & Sovereigns
1759. 1st. English Edition.
Emmerich de Vattel

Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States as the world's first constitutional republic.

The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz's influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel's The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America's founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

Virtually unknown today except amongst specialists, Emmerich de Vattel was born on April 25, 1714, in the principality of Neufchâtel, which was part of Switzerland. He became an ardent student of Leibniz, and in 1741, published his first work, a defense of Leibniz, Défense du système leibnitzien.

His most famous work, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns:

Vattel's The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of The Law of Nations were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796.

Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's The Law of Nations arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew.

Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me. In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, "of great use to Judges," that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and "his excellent Treatise entitled Le Droit des Gens." James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here." Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.

The Law of Nations and The Declaration of Independence

Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ... ."

The study of The Law of Nations by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions "of the circumstances of a rising state," is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people.

Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our "British Brethren," but since they "have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity," we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, "to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do."

The inclusion of the central conception of The Law of Nations, Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke's philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his Two Treatises of Government, that the fundamental right of men is to "Life, Liberty, and Property." The inclusion of "the pursuit of happiness," rather than "property," as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.

The Law of Nations and The Constitution

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."—Preamble of The Constitution of the United States
The Law of Nations was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions.

To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by the Parliament.

The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution.

American writers quoted The Law of Nations on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, "Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that 'the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' 'that their authority does not extend so far,' and 'that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.' " In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.

The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written.

The U.S. Consititution

One of the first and most persistent in efforts to replace the weak central government with a strong one, was Alexander Hamilton. The government of the Articles of Confederation demonstrated its inadequacies during the American Revolution, and its failings became even clearer, when it was unable to halt the economic collapse which resulted from British economic warfare, following the 1783 Treaty of Paris. On Sept. 3, 1780, Hamilton, who was aide-de-camp for Washington, sent a letter to James Duane, who was then a Congressman, arguing that the weak central government was a disaster and urging specific reforms to strengthen it. For the next seven years, Hamilton argued in private letters, public appeals, resolutions, speeches in assemblies, and maneuvers at conventions, that a new constitution was needed to provide a strong central government.

Hamilton was a delegate to the convention which wrote the Constitution in 1787. His main concern was not the institutional arrangements of the government, but its purpose, and the creation of a central government strong enough to carry out that purpose. Three weeks into the convention, he delivered an all-day speech focussing on this. Whereas many of the delegates to the convention saw the purpose of government from the Lockean standpoint of "life, liberty and property," Hamilton's speech, coherent with Vattel's "Principle Objects of a Good Government," located the purposes of government as "the great purposes of commerce, revenue, or agriculture," "tranquility and happiness at home," and, "sufficient stability and strength to make us respectable abroad."

The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In The Federalist Papers, No. 78, "The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution," circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel's conception. Hamilton stated that it is a "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall.


The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law 1758, Emmerich de Vattel - LONANG Library

Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, L.H. Butterfield - Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press, 1961, Vol. 1, p. 235.

Butterfield, Vol. 1, p. 278.

The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, by William B. Willcox - New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959, Vol. 31, pp. 261-65.

John Jay, Letter to Gouverneur Morris, in John Jay: Winning the Peace, 1745-84, by Richard B. Morris - New York: Harper and Row, 1980, Vol II, pp. 108-10.

Benjamin Munn Ziegler, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1939, p. 9.

Letter from William Bradford to James Madison, Oct. 17, 1774, The Papers of James Madison, by William Hutchinson and William Rachal - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, Vol. I, p. 126.

Charles William Frederick Dumas was a native of Switzerland, who lived most of his life in The Netherlands. He was one of the most important agents and diplomats working for the American cause in Europe. Dumas corresponded constantly with Franklin, using his edition of The Law of Nations as a cipher for coding his communications. Franklin had to use his copy of The Law of Nations to decipher Dumas' letters.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Robert Skipwith, Aug. 3, 1771, in Writings, op. cit., pp. 740-45.

Alexander Hamilton, Letter to James Duane, in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. by Harold C. Syrett - New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-77, Vol 2, pp. 400-18.

Forrest McDonald, Alexander Hamilton, A Biography - New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979, p. 97.

Press Conference Recording

The video recording of the December 8, 2008 National Press Club press conference is available here.

We will make edited sections of the video available later.

Robert Stevens.

Lightfoot v. Bowen is filed in the Supreme Court

Today at 4:45 pm EST, with 15 minutes before the court closed, Dr. Orly Taitz DDS Esq. filed the Lightfoot v. Bowen case in the US Supreme Court.

Robert Stevens

A Video Message to Electors

This video is a message to electors.

Robert Stevens

Confusion in the media

The amount of confusion in the journalism community is amazing. Even among the conservative media, they seem to have this story completely confused. Every day I run across several examples. Wes Vernon of RenewAmerica wrote a column on 12.11.08 entitled "Obama deemed qualified by birth for presidency". He makes a number of misleading statements in his column, including "Hawaii's secretary of state has confirmed that Obama was born in that state."

Wow. With people like this as allies on the anti-Obama side, no wonder people are so poorly informed. So I wrote to Wes Vernon today.

Letter to Wes Vernon of RenewAmerica

Wes Vernon, about your column "Obama deemed qualified by birth for presidency". You are unfortunately a bit confused.

What is on Barack Obama's original birth records? Were they ever changed, as allowed under Hawaiian law?

Do you know that under Hawaiian law, one to register a foreign birth in Hawaii and have a perfectly valid Hawaiian birth certificate? (per Hawaii Law 338-17.8)

Obama's sister Maya was born in Jakarta Indonesia, yet I understand she has a perfectly valid "Hawaiian birth certificate". I have even met someone born on the mainland US, who lost his birth certificate, and quickly and cheaply had it replaced with a Hawaiian birth certificate. All perfectly legal at the time, under Hawaiian law, apparently.

Please show me where the Hawaiian Health Officials affirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. I certainly have missed that, if it happened.

There are other mis-statements in your column but let us start with that one. You discredit yourself with such lax journalism.

Robert Stevens

For a more careful analysis, see

Robert Stevens

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Constitutional Lawyer Orly Taitz on the Andrea Shea King Show

Listen to Dr. Orly Taitz on the Andrea Shea King Show.

During the interview, Orly Taitz, the southern California constitutional law attorney gives updates on two separate petitions being brought before the California Superior courts re: Obama's eligibility for presidency on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes (Keyes v. Bowen) and Lightfoot v. Bowen.

Dr. Taitz also covers research from her work, for example, no one seems to be able to name the hospital where Obama was born. Also to date, no one knows where his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was treated for cancer. None of the hospitals in Hawaii have a record of her ever being there, much less treated for her terminal disease.

Adding another twist - investigations shows no record of a funeral for Stanley Ann Dunham -- no funeral home, no death certificate, no coroner's or medical exam report, no burial place. We're told there was a memorial service. Where? When? No record exists of that either. Obama's sister reportedly said that Stanley Ann Dunham was cremated and her ashes were spread over the Pacific. Where was the cremation done? When?

The research involving Dr. Taitz work shows that a search of Stanley Ann Dunham's social security number, allowable once a person is deceased according to Taitz, revealed that her SS # is still active, leading investigators to three addresses in Hawaii and one in New York. Who is using Stanley Ann Dunham's social security number? Could it be a case of identity theft?

Records of Obama's grandmother Madelyn Dunham's death are not to be found either. Curiously, also missing is any record of Stanley Ann and Barack Obama Sr.'s marriage, which supposedly took place on the island of Maui.

Listen to this and more on the Andrea Shea King Show.

Four Main Cases, One Tough Road

From America's Right:

Four Main Cases, One Tough Road

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
by Jeff Schreiber

A sobering look at Berg v. Obama, other cases questioning Obama's eligibility after Berg's emergency injunction attempts denied today

While others are certainly in the works or already in circulation in various lower courts across the country, four main cases challenging Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States remain active and pending.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Cort Wrotnowski's action, created much in the same mold of Leo Donofrio's unsuccessful try, is scheduled for conference on Friday. The question presented by that case, much like that presented by Donofrio's, is to me the most palatable and tempting for the Court, in that Wrotnowski asks the Justices to define the Natural Born Citizen clause rather than merely apply it. Still, considering the fate of Donofrio's attempt, I wonder if the sharpened approach in Wrotnowski will be enough.

Friday is December 12, 2008. Unless I'm wrong, take heart in knowing that the 2000 election coincidentially was not settled until December 12 of that year.

Keyes v. Bowen and Lightfoot v. Bowen. Southern California dentist and attorney Orly Taitz has two cases still working their way through the court. Her first one, featuring Ambassador and former Independent Party and GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes as plaintiff, is still currently before the California Supreme Court. Her second case, featuring a number of electors and veterans as well as Ron Paul's former running mate Gail Lightfoot, was quickly disposed of by the Supreme Court of California, a expedient move which Taitz, at Monday's Washington, D.C. press conference, said was intended to move her along to the U.S. Supreme Court quicker.

I may be a mere law student, but it appears to me that Lightfoot was dismissed from the Supreme Court of California just like Fred Hollander's case was dismissed from New Hampshire District Court, just like Markham Robinson's earlier case was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and just like Philip Berg's case was dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick at the district court level here in Philadelphia. Absent some sort of contrary evidence in the Lightfoot judge's order and memorandum, I'm inclined to think that it is standard procedure rather that overt judicial concern which has permitted Taitz to move on to the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, Berg's case was before a Republican judge, and Markham Robinson's earlier case was before a judge in decidedly liberal northern California -- did those judges dismiss those cases out of concern, or perhaps because they wanted to give Phil Berg and Markham Robinson an opportunity to appeal? I'd say probably not.

Regardless, Lightfoot v. Bowen will likely soon be placed on Justice Anthony Kennedy's desk and, as it does feature a former vice presidential candidate and a few electors as plaintiffs, I will be curious to see how it moves along.

Berg v. Obama. Today was a busy day for Philip Berg's case against Barack Obama. First, Justice David Souter at the U.S. Supreme Court denied Berg's application for an emergency injunction pending the disposition of his petition for writ of certiorari and Judges Scirica and Ambro at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied his emergency motion for an immediate injunction pending the resolution of his appeal. Both were intended to stay the Electoral College vote scheduled for December 15, 2008 and the counting of said votes scheduled for January 8, 2009.

Also, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set the Briefing and Scheduling Order for Berg's appeal in that court. Of all days, Berg's brief is due before the Third Circuit on January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day. The appellees' briefs are due by February 19, and Berg's response is due on March 4.

"The timing is certainly interesting," Berg said. "Regardless, it is truly a disgrace that, here it is December, we're days away from the Electoral College vote, and we're still talking about whether or not Obama is qualified to be president. It's even worse that we could be talking about this in January, on Inauguration Day of all days."

In terms of his action before the U.S. Supreme Court, it is still active and pending. As with the others, and really with any one petition for certiorari filed with the Court, the likelihood that Philip Berg will see the inside of a courtroom in Washington is slim. Still, here are some possibilities of what could theoretically, and realistically, happen next:

(1) Berg’s certiorari petition could be denied, without comment or dissent (a dissent by one or more Justices to a denial of a certiorari petition, while rare, is not unprecedented). This would end Berg’s case, but likely not jurisdictionally end the others;
(2) Berg’s certiorari petition could be granted and the matter set for oral argument following the filing of additional briefs, with the Court directing (a) that the issues be confined to arguments on Berg’s standing, or (b) that the issues of standing and, assuming standing, the merits of the case be addressed. In either event, neither of these scenarios would take place before Dec. 15, so because the Court denied Berg's application for emergency stay of the Electoral College vote, the vote will likely go ahead as planned;
(3) If option 2(a) occurs, at some future date, the Court could determine that Berg had standing in USDC and could vacate that decision--and naturally the Third Circuit decision as well--and remand to the U.S. District Court here in Philadelphia with instructions to proceed with “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” At that point, as extremely unlikely as it is, who knows what would happen?
(4) If option 2(b) occurs, the Court could actually reach the merits of Berg's case and, sometime well after Dec. 15 of this year or Jan. 20 of the next, render a decision. Considering the nature of the Court, the most likely result under this scenario would likely be a 6-3 or, at best, a 5-4 decision against Berg holding that, because Berg failed to prove his case at the district court level, he loses. This would make the matter res judicata, at least with regard to Philip Berg and Barack Obama, and would for all practical purposes severely undermine if not foreclose all other pending and future challenges to Obama’s eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen clause. While I'm not certain that it would necessarily work, I would expect Obama's team of attorneys to argue that the stampede of other suits would be foreclosed under collateral estoppel theory.
(5) While unlikely but certainly not unprecedented, the Court could simply wait until after Jan. 20, 2009 to do anything and then, after the inauguration, simply dismiss whatever action was then pending on the grounds of it being a "political question" and separation of powers, or on the grounds of mootness. The issue, of course, implicates neither of these excuses, but the Court could say so -- and, at that point, what other court would intercede?

Unfortunately, it is and has always been a long-shot, despite what I believe to be a clear and vitally important constitutional question. Keep in mind that, under the second, third and fourth scenarios, significant public exposure would be given to the case and to Berg's allegations. Regardless, it is a tough road down which to travel, nearly any way you look at it.

Berg, however, still remains positive.

"Am I optimistic? Absolutely," he said. "One way or the other, we're going to get to the bottom of this. One way or the other, the truth will come out, and he will not take office as president of the United States."

Posted by Robert Stevens

Demand for Retraction

These letters are in response to a completely garbled account of the press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC on December 8, 2008, written by Jeff Schreiber, a law student.

Mr. Schreiber,

I understand that you are a law student and I hope that one day, when you will become an attorney (god willing) you will make sure your statements are accurate.
I have a full DVD of the press conference and a number of things that you have reported were absolutely not true

1. I never compared Mr. Obama to Black Panters

2. I never mentioned Adolph Hitler

3 I did not come from Chechnya

4 As you mentioned yourself, Mr. Schulz's lengthy "speech exceeded the attention span of the audience by leaps and bounces", which in simple English meant that the audience was simply falling asleep. I needed to wake up the audience and make sure they are on board again and brought a couple of humorous remarks to do just that. I've mentioned that the FCC has sanctioned the media for indecency in Janet Jackson's costume malfunction, however the media was not sanctioned for totally misrepresenting the truth in the Obama's lack of eligibility. It was one of those remarks that woke up the audience and made them listen and understand how indecent our media is, starting from Keith Oberman, Chris Matheus, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Charlie Gibson and all the rest. After about a million times it was presented to them, the statue 338-176, that shows that Hawaiian residents can register in Hawaii the birth of their children, born abroad and it can be done based on a statement of one relative only, meaning a grandma could've gone to register in HI her grandchild that was actually born abroad ant that's why the short BC is worthless. After a year of explaining this simple point to them, our media still sticks in our faces this worthless short BC.

I trust that your retraction and apology will come shortly


Orly Taitz ( a licensed attorney, not a law student)


1. I mentioned Eldridge Cleaver only in the contest of Cleaver v Jordan, when he was removed from the ballot for being only 34 years old and not eligible; likewise Obama is not eligible for not being a natural born citizen. It never came in connotation of Obama being compared to black panthers and you have to clarify this point.

2. I never insinuated Hitler. I have the full dvd and I made a point of watching it start to finish with my husband and we didn't find it anywhere. You have to make a correction on that point. You clearly misunderstood something.

3. I noticed another mistake: you said that the Keyes case was dismissed- it is incorrect, it wasn't, and it wasn't in the Supreme court of CA

4. Lightfoot v Bowen was in the Supreme Court of CA, the judges reviewed it within 2 days and stayed till 10 in the evening on Friday the 5th to render a decision. It was clear that in such a liberal state they would not give a stay, but by staying till 10 on Friday and giving me a green light to go to SCOTUS, they showed that they are really concerned.

5. There was a reason, why I talked about the media. A number of people in the media have told me that they are concerned about the issue, but afraid to talk, because they will be fired. If you read Blagojevich indictment, you would see how Chicago Tribune was pressured in firing reporters that speak up the truth. To change the media bias, it is important to follow the money trail. A number of my readers had sent me letters to, saying that they noticed a big change in FOX reporting after (reportedly) a number of the shares were purchased by Saudi Arabia. Over 3,000 people visited my blog after the show. A few were dumb Obama thugs, but vast majority were concerned citizens that are outraged by both Obama and media. A number stated that they are writing to FCC, demanding sanctions. If you can investigate the money trail and show where there was corruption, you can help in this endeavor and clean up the media.

6. I was born in Kischinev. It is on the boarder between Soviet Union and Romania, nowhere near Chechnia. My peculiar accent comes from speaking 5 languages and understanding more then that.

7.You seem to twist everything positive into negative. You said "dentist turned constitutional lawyer" I am still a dentist and run 2 dental practices and a family with 3 children. I am licensed as both a dentist (over 20 years of experience) and an attorney licensed in all courts of CA, Federal court and soon to be licensed in the Supreme Court of US. How many people can do this? In regards to Constitutional law: everybody seems to be an expert, but very few do anything. Nobody wants to do anything pro-bono. I took over this matter because I care about this country, it is important to me that people have their liberties, free speech, free press. When others don't step up to the plate- some people make an extra effort. You, Jeff, can file a legal action pro se. You don't have to be a licensed attorney to do that. It is easy to criticize, why don't you help with legal research?
You are welcome to publish this letter with your retraction and corrections. Please ask if any of your readers would like to help- they can e-mail me to


Posted by Robert Stevens

ABC reporter Vicky Mabrey- a black racist?

After the press conference at National Press Club Dr. Orly talked to the ABC reporter Vicky Mabrey (an African American woman) and asked her why doesn't she report about Mr. Obama not being eligible for presidency and why doesn't she report about all the rampant fraud surrounding Obama. Mabrey was trying to find excuses for Obama's behavior. Dr. Orly told her that she should have journalistic integrity and seek the truth instead of looking for excuses for Obama. Mabrey ended up asking Dr. Orly where Dr. Orly was from. Dr. Orly said that she was born in former Soviet Union. Mabrey responded, "go home".

People can be white racists and black racists. This woman was rude, unprofessional and acted as a Black racist. If I were to behave in a similar fashion and were to tell her to go home back to Africa, then ABC and CNN and the rest of our main stream media would've crucified me. This shows how the political correctness in our country reached the level of total insanity. When people are talking about fraud perpetrated by Obama, they are being harassed and intimidated and called racist, but a black reporter feels it's okay to make racist statements about others.

Meanwhile Obama is treating 300 million Americans as a herd of brainless sheep refusing to provide any information, showing him eligible for presidency.

Tim Johnson

An open Letter to ABC News from Dr. Orly Supporters

Your ABC reporter, Vicky Mabrey was most out of line, unprofessional and blatantly racist in her "Go home" comment to Dr. Orly regarding concerns over why Mabrey chose to not report the authenticity of Obama's supposed citizenship and the fraud surrounding him. It seems you, too, should be questioning Mabrey's integrity and worth considering her disgusting behavior. Talk about calling the kettle black.

You know, Don Imus learned a valuable and costly lesson not too long ago when he elected to make a stupid, thought-less and racist remark. Is Mabrey truly the face of ABC you want represented or can she get by with inappropriateness simply because of her color? Hmm...That would be a double standard. We'll be curious to see the repercussions your employee, Mabrey receives. At the very least she owes Dr. Orly a public apology.

Mabrey might be reminded, if you keep her on, that she open her mouth to report the news and keep her opinions and biases to herself.

Jon & Rogette Huntington

A cartoon about this incident is featured on the blog, Politicode.

Posted by Tim Johnson

Corruption of the media

Please read the Rod Blagojevich indictments. You can see how Chicago polititians manipulate the media, how writors and editors were fired for speaking out and that was done in exchange for financial dealings. Are you surprised by the fact that the media doesn't report the truth on Obama?

Each and every decent American needs to write to Patrick Fitzgerald, US attorney for Northern District of Illinois, US attorney's office, FBI and homeland security and demand immediate investigation of Mr. Obama, his fraudulent statement made under oath to become an officer of the Court in Illinois. Obama claimed not to have any other names, while it is stated in his school application in Indonesia, that his name is Barry Soetoro. Please report all the instances of fraudulent statements made by Mr. Obama, please report his refusal to provide any of his records. I will publish your open letters to authorities.

Contact Information

United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300

United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
308 W. State St., Ste 300
Rockford, IL 61101
Phone: (815) 987-4444

Correspondence to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to

For the Illinois Attorney General, addresses and phone numbers are here. You can email the Illinois Attorney General's office by using this contact form.

Thanks to Ms Suzanne Pedro for all her help

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

After Press Conference yesterday over 3000 people visited the blog

Over 3,000 visitors have read my blog yesterday. A number of people have agreed about the need to sanction the media for their indicensy in manipulating and twisting the truth about Obama's lack of eligibility. A number of people want to write open letters to FCC. Please let me know who wants to be involved in this project? If you do, please contact Ms. Pamela Barnett, she is spearheading this project.
2. Ones that want to be involved with HAVA complaints, please contact Ms. Lisa Ostella
3. If you are a retired military, please contact Mr. Neil Turner
4. if you are in active military call Captain's America Radio
5. if you are intersted in demonstrating contact Mr. Young
6. if you would like to write to the authorities contact mr Stevens
7. if you would like to write to the justices, contact Sarah

At the rate of responses we are getting, we will have about 100,000 in one month of this blog's existance. In connection with other groups we will have large numbers. A lady by name Megan Gener mentioned 50 million silent supporters.
We can make a difference and we have to, we owe it to our children

Urgent-write Elections Contest today, sign, notarize and send the copy to Dr. Taitz

Every elector and every voter has to send his Elections challenge today

1.Go to UPS store and sign and notarize this letter:

“I object to the Electoral College members votes being given to Barack Hussein Obama II because I am not satisfied that his birth records indicate he is qualified for the office of President under the requirements of Article II of the U.S. Constitution; and because he has not made his birth records available to answer the question notwithstanding having been sued on that issue in courts across the country.”

2. send it to your state elections board by certified mail or ups or Fed EX

3. scan the signed and notarized copy and e-mail it to me
or fax 949-586-2082

We need such contests from each and every state, particularly all the large blue states,

Obama was born in Hawaii?

On December 9, 2008, ABC News Today Show stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. Here is an open letter to the Today Show about this matter:

Obama was born in Hawaii?

How do you know?

Why does his paternal grandmother say otherwise, in a recording?

Why are there signed affadavits of those who interviewed his grandmother attesting to the accuracy of this?

Why did Kenyan Ambassador to the US Ogego state otherwise in a radio interview?

Why do several forensic document examiners, including the one who exposed the Dan Rather "forged Bush letter", find that the "certifications of live birth" that the Obama campaign distributed on the internet are suspect? (See a couple of the affadavits here and here).

Why has Obama, using lawyers from the firm Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C., (well known for representing the Council on American Islamic Relations), fought Philip J. Berg and others in dozens of lawsuits so strenuously to avoid the production of his documents? (A partial list of some of the legal actions that Berg undertook, many in response to actions by Obama's lawyers, is here.)

Why has the State of Hawaii not said that Obama was born in Hawaii, but issued an ambiguous statement that many have misinterpreted?

Contrary to popular belief, no State of Hawaii government official has ever stated that Obama was born in Hawaii, as far as we have been able to determine. And we have looked and looked, and asked the State of Hawaii officials repeatedly ourselves.

Many have alleged that the Secretaries of State in each state, or the State Elections Commissions in each state, examine the candidate's credentials to make sure they are eligible. We have contacted all of them, several times over the last several weeks, and have not yet found a single state election official who has claimed that they vetted any of the candidates (see the details here).

I guess this is how green card holder Róger Calero, with a long list of run-ins with the law on drug-related and immigration charges, ended up as a Presidential candidate on the ballot in 5 states.

Robert Stevens

Plains Radio report of the 12.08.08. press conference

WILD Days in DC Continue Tues 12-09-08

HomeMissionFAQsAccomplishmentsVolunteerHot VidsNew SiteNewsContact UsFreedomMarch RadioPress Releases
Wild Days in DC Continue...

Tues 12-09-08 7:30 AM

Who knows what will happen today. 8 hrs of solid rack time, and I'm good-to-go. Twisted an ankle in all the commotion yesterday, so now I'm gimpin' around a bit. Swell, but no matter...this is history. If you see me in any pics or video, I'm the kind of odd-looking guy with black hair to the shoulder. Must run. Will check in w/bloggers as possible through the day.

Joe Thunder

Here's an audio Blog

Update from Pastor Manning's representative - 10:10AM EST.

Joe, I was @ the NPC yesterday. The unnamed ABC newsperson was Vicki Mabrey, an Nightline correspondent, fmrly of 60 Minutes (I have her card as proof). Please cite this info as an unnamed confirmed source. She walked out prior to Pastor Manning speaking. Peace :)

Wild Day in DC Monday 12-08-08
I barely know where to begin. OK. Big news for Tues 12-9-08 and Friday 12-12-08. Leo Donofrio's case was denied today, BUT Cort Wrotnowski's case was distributed for conference by all nine SCOTUS Justices this coming Friday morning. Leo's legal arguments were a large bases portion of Cort's. Leo strengthened the arguments in Cort's case, AND both Leo and Cort are heading to the SCOTUS Tues to file a supplemental brief further strengthening Cort's case. They will answer questions from the media at the SCOTUS steps at 11:00AM.

This is far from over. Leo is fired up. Let the media know that Leo and Cort will be there at 11:00 AM Tues.

And it gets even better - my eyes are still crossed. I attended the most amazing press conference anyone could imagine today. The room was packed overflowing. (It was probably the same room at the National Press Club used by Rev Wright ranting on after Obama didn't want him too. I'll try and find out...Poetic isn't it?.) Philip J. Berg, Esq., Bob Shultz, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq, and the ever lovable, Pastor James Manning, just SPANKED a room full of press with four big professional vid cams running, etc. Wow. It was hard not to cheer, and Pastor Manning got an ovation even in there!

I got it on tape.

You'll never see this in MSM. We'll have it produced and posted by Tues early afternoon PST. It's 90+ minutes. You can see the whole thing.

Some Highlights include:

Bob Schultz telling us how he's been fighting the disassembly of the Constitution for 30 years. He'll NEVER give up.

Phil Berg telling us what's he's doing legally above and below the radar, and how he'll NEVER give up. (His brother passed away on Sat, and he's still here working hard today.)

Pastor Manning talks about Obama's influence and example on young people, and how unpopular Pastor Manning is in Harlem right now.

Dr. Orly telling us about the big name plaintiffs with standing in her newest suit going to the SCOTUS. Note: Orly escaped the former USSR in 1987. She's as motivated an individual as I have ever seen. She just blasted the MSM. My hair remains blown back. Just seeing that alone was worth the trip!

These people are Patriots.

BTW - On the way out, the ABC Newsperson told Orly, "Just Go Home." That's the wrong thing to tell Orly....stay tuned. Big media was in the room, but most would not identify themselves. I'll report it as I get it.


PS. It's been 24 hrs with no food or sleep, and I just wolfed a sandwich like an animal. Busy, busy busy. We're working hard here. I'll be phoning in updates to Plains Radio and Overnight AM later.

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.

Comments on Ronald Kessler's Washington Insider Article

Ronald Kessler of Newsmax wrote a piece on Monday about Barack Obama's eligibility. I am always astounded at how little investigation supposedly serious journalists do on this issue. Permit me to make a few comments.

Obama Was Born in the United States

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:30 AM

By: Ronald Kessler

For months, I have been bombarded by e-mails claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. I have also received hundreds of e-mails from readers asking why I do not expose the truth about his birth.

The truth is that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii, by law, does not make original birth certificates public, and this has enabled conspiracy theorists to claim that there is something nefarious about the circumstances of Obama's birth.

Instead, it provides those born in Hawaii with a so-called certification of their birth — also known as a short-form birth certificate — that lists the name of the baby and the date and place of birth but not additional details like the birth weight and the parents' hometowns.

As claims of a cover-up mounted on the Internet prior to the election, Obama posted a digitally scanned image of his original short-form birth certificate. But that enabled conspiracy theorists to say the image had been created by Photoshop. Obama then let, a nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, view, handle, and photograph the short-form birth certificate at Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.

The "experts" at are nonexsitent. If you investigate, you will find that these are people with undergraduate degrees in theatre and philosophy. There is no one on staff who has a technical background in microscopy or ink chemistry or fonts or Questioned Document examination. The claims that this study means anything are not particularly compelling.

Even more troubling is what the real experts say; real professionals including graduate degrees in technical subjects, licenses and decades of experience. One of them was the Forensic Document Expert who uncovered the "Dan Rather forged Bush letter" that ended Dan Rather's career. Take a look at just a couple of the affadavits of several experts who have examined these documents and found them disturbing, here and here.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport,", headed by respected former Wall Street Journal reporter Brooks Jackson, concluded.

According to the State Department, that includes "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records."

With the short form, there is no way to corroborate the information on the document by checking with the birth Hospital, or attending physician, etc. This document is not adequate for participating in the Hawaiian government programs. In some instances, the documents held by the Hawaii Health Department can be changed.

That led to claims by conspiracy theorists that the document shown to was fake. However, on Oct. 31, the Hawaii Department of Health issued a press release saying that Chiyome Fukino, director of Hawaii's Department of Health, along with Alvin Onaka, the registrar of vital statistics, had "personally seen and verified that Hawaii's State Department of Public Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Fukino actually stated, "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Note that Fukino did not claim that Obama was born in Hawaii, or that the documents produced so far are valid documents; only that the Department of Health has valid documents on file. However, because it is possible to be born outside of Hawaii or even outside the US and still have a valid Hawaiian birth document, this statement does not mean much (in fact there is a box 7C on the Hawaiian long form certificate of live birth where one can register a foreign birth location).

Fukino told the Honolulu Advertiser that her department issued the press release after being barraged by calls about the issue, including some received by state officials at home in the middle of the night.

This has gotten ridiculous," said Fukino, a medical doctor.

Aside from that official verification of Obama's birth in Hawaii, back on Aug. 31, 1961, the Honolulu Advertiser ran an announcement of his birth.

Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalaniaaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4," the announcement said.

What exactly does a newspaper announcement prove? Anyone can pay for one and get one. And what is to say that the proud grandparents did not place ads in the newspaper about their first grandchild? Would seem fairly reasonable. The ad of course does not mention where the child was born.

What about claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother has said he was born in Kenya? At a dinner at the Ritz Carlton given by a conservative group, I happened to sit next to Philip Berg. Berg is the Philadelphia lawyer who is suing to have Obama disqualified as president because he is allegedly not a citizen of the United States.

A former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Berg has claimed that he has a tape recording of a phone conversation in which Obama’s paternal grandmother says she was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.

On Oct. 23, Berg told talk-radio host Michael Savage that he would release the tape “in a day or two.” To date, he has not done so.

At the dinner, I asked Berg how he knows that the voice on the tape is that of Obama’s grandmother. Berg was vague: He said he knows someone who vouches for the fact that the tape is authentic.

I have heard the recording. It is of course in Swahili. And I will try to get a link to the recording and affadavits and translation to post here. The fact that Kessler has not tracked this down just shows me that he did not try very hard to find it. Not much journalism there, I guess.

"Tape recordings" are never fool-proof evidence. For example, I remember a dinner my wife and I once had in Paris with a reporter for the National Enquirer while I was writing a book on arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. Actor Richard Burton had just died, and the reporter said he was going to meet up later with other National Enquirer reporters at a bar so they could make up stories about Burton to run in the paper.

I knew a Williams & Connolly lawyer who reviewed the paper’s stories for libel before they were published. He had told me that he insisted on listening to any taped interviews that support sensitive stories.

“How do you get around that?” I asked the Enquirer reporter.

“Oh, that’s easy,” the reporter explained. “I get in a cab and pay the driver to say what I tell him to say into a tape recorder.”

On the radio show, Berg told Savage that he believes the birth certificate Obama showed was forged.

“This has been a real sham he’s pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage.

Berg said he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and was unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. According to Berg, the family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the birth announcement to the local newspaper.

Why would they do that? To any conspiracy theorist, the answer would be obvious: They knew that Obama would some day run for president.

This is just plain ridiculous. A strawman argument. And a silly one at that.

After all, Berg also believes that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and other government officials had “adequate foreknowledge” of the 9/11 attack and “failed to warn the country or attempt to prevent it and have been covering up the truth of that day ever since,” according to another lawsuit he filed.

“I think that there is no question that President Bush knew about it [and] was very complicit in the events of 9/11,” Berg told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC on Jan. 28, 2004.

Berg has clients who are 911 families who are suing. And lawyers represent the views that their clients pay them to represent. That is what lawyers do. Even if they disagree with those views.

In response to Berg’s complaint about Obama’s citizenship, Obama and the Democratic National Committee asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. They said that Berg’s claims were “ridiculous” and “patently false” and that Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president, because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Of course the defendents would attack Berg as having made "ridiculous" and "patently false" claims. Why would you expect anything else?

On Oct. 24, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick in Philadelphia dismissed Berg’s lawsuit. In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or on any other voters.

Berg has appealed to the Supreme Court. A virulent Internet rumor claims that the court has agreed to take the case. In fact, as it does with all cases, the court has merely agreed to decide whether to take the case. Berg's petition is on the justices’ private conference list for today, Dec. 8.

Meanwhile, Berg has been collecting money through his Web site to support his case. When I asked him how much he has collected, he would not say.

If there were any basis for Berg’s claims, one would think that the John McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee would have supported the lawsuit or at least blasted out e-mails touting the case. In fact, a McCain campaign aide told me that McCain campaign lawyers had looked into the allegations about Obama’s birth and found them to be bogus.

I am working with some McCain campaign aides and Republican party officials who do not think they are bogus.

You would also think that Berg would be happy to be interviewed about the case by a journalist like me. But although he agreed to an interview at the conservative dinner, he has since failed to respond to my voicemails and e-mails asking for him to call.

Berg does not respond even to fellow lawyers at this point. He has been overwhelmed by the attention. And my team is well on its way to being overwhelmed as well.

Ever since President Bush toppled a man who killed 300,000 people, he has been the subject of vicious attacks and conspiracy theories from the left. Now is the time for the right to show that it will not tarnish itself by going down that road and that it will extend to the new president the fair play and respect Bush never received.

So we should just ignore the glaring problems in the interest of "fair play" and "respect"? Many on our team are from the left; Democrats, Green party supporters, Nader supporters, Clintonistas, Socialists etc. This is not a question of "left" or "right" but of law, and the truth. Projecting this issue onto the old red state-blue state paradigm is not helpful. And it is an example of just plain rotten journalism.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of

Robert Stevens

Press Conference debriefing

I flew into the DC area on a redeye flight, and went with attorney Philip J. Berg and We The People Foundation chairman Bob Schulz to a press conference on the Obama Eligibility Issue at the National Press Club in Washington DC on December 8, 2008. There was a standing room only crowd in the Murrow Room, of about 60 journalists. The entire 2.5 hour proceeding was recorded as a video which we will make available on this blog as soon as possible.

I chastised the mainstream press for not covering this controversy more fully and accurately. Several of them were quite miffed and chagrined at being taken to task over it. One of them was even offended when I said I had grown up under a totalitarian regime, and that I did not want to see the USA go down the same path! She had the gall to tell me to go back where I came from.

I raised numerous questions about the "mysteries" surrounding Barack Obama and his family, including the lack of hospital records in Hawaii for Obama and his mother. The press was dumbstruck in many cases, since they clearly are unaware of a lot of this material.

When I was challenged by the claim that the Secretaries of State and other election officials had already carefully vetted these candidates, I pointed out that our volunteers had repeatedly contacted every single state election body and Secretary of State, multiple times, over the last few weeks, and had not found a single example of a state where these officials had vetted the candidates, or even felt it was their duty to do so (see some responses here). This is in spite of the fact that state law requires many of them to do so, and this is even written into many state's election codes! I further noted that the Secretaries of State and other election officials are not doing their jobs since a woman who died in 2001 was listed as a democratic elector by the California Secretary of State. I presented Ilene Huber's death records to the audience, much to their amazement and chagrin. (You can look at these records for yourself here and here).

I believe that this press conference went a long way towards educating an influential group; the mainstream press. With continued efforts, we will raise the consciousness level of the US public on this topic.

Other accounts of this press conference can be found here and here.

Orly Taitz, as told to Robert Stevens

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz Friday, December 12, 2008

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz will be considered on Friday, December 12, 2008 by the full conference of Supreme Court Justices for acceptance. Cort Wrotnowski's suit covers many of the same issues that Donofrio's suit does, but is more polished and has less lower court baggage associated with it.

All Electors Should do this Today

James Hochberg, the attorney leading the Hawaii lawsuit fight, advises that December 9, 2008 is the deadline for electors to file objections in their state elections, Secretary of State or similar office. Hochberg and Judge Bell discussed this issue and decided that they need all of their elector clients, WHETHER SUCCESSFUL, VOTING ELECTORS OR NOT, to file a simple objection like the sample below (feel free to use the sample verbatim.)

“I object to the Electoral College members votes being given to Barack Hussein Obama II because I am not satisfied that his birth records indicate he is qualified for the office of President under the requirements of Article II of the U.S. Constitution; and because he has not made his birth records available to answer the question notwithstanding having been sued on that issue in courts across the country.”

If you are an elector in your state, please send this letter, by certified mail if possible, to the Secretary of State of your state, or your State Elections Commission, or other state body responsible for supervising elections.

Second of some 40 Obama ineligibility lawsuits will be reviewed in full conference of the Supreme Court of the US on Friday

No. 08A469
Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Nos.: (SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Cort Wrotnowski 1057 North Street (202) 862-8554
Greenwich, CT 06831
Party name: Cort Wrotnowski
Attorneys for Respondent:
Richard Blumenthal Attorney General (860) 808-5316
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Monday, December 8, 2008

National Press Club, 1:30 PM December 8, 2008

I will appear at a press conference on this issue at 1:30 pm on December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington DC.

Orly Taitz, as told to Robert Stevens

Recommended: Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr's article "IN THE SHADOW OF NEMESIS"

I highly recommend Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.'s new article, "IN THE SHADOW OF NEMESIS" published today, December 8, 2008, by "". Dr. Vieira considers the questions of "standing" that have brought down several legal challenges to Barack Obama, describes the constitutional process that takes place after the Electoral College meets, and discusses what will happen if Obama is sworn in to office if he is ineligible.

Robert Stevens

The California Supreme Court acted expeditiously and gave me the chance to file in the US Supreme Court as early as today (December 8, 2008)

I wanted to thank the Justices of the Supreme Court of California and Chief Justice Ronald M. George for acting so expediently.Within two days the Justices have reviewed the case and entered their disposition on it today, on Friday night, at 9:53 PM. They have denied on my pleadings, which gives me an opportunity to file immediately in the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court Justice assigned to our ninth circuit (includes CA) is an Honorable Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I have attached a wikipedia article about Honorable Judge Kennedy.
Thank you again for all your support.

Anthony Kennedy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. For the Maryland senator, see Anthony Kennedy (Maryland).
Anthony McLeod Kennedy


Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Assumed office
February 18, 1988
Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Preceded by Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.


Born July 23, 1936 (1936-07-23) (age 72)
Sacramento, California
Spouse Mary Davis Kennedy
Alma mater Stanford University
Religion Roman Catholic[1]
Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) has been an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1988. Appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, he acts as the Court's swing vote on social issues in some cases and has consequently held special prominence in some politically-charged 5–4 decisions.

Contents [hide]
1 Personal history
2 Appointment
3 Supreme Court tenure
3.1 Ideology
3.1.1 Abortion
3.1.2 Gay rights and homosexuality
3.1.3 Capital punishment
3.1.4 Gun control
3.1.5 Habeas Corpus
3.1.6 Other issues
4 Analysis of Supreme Court tenure
5 Conservative Criticism
6 Outside activities
7 References
8 See also
9 External links

[edit] Personal history
Kennedy is not related to the Kennedy family of American politics. He grew up in Sacramento, California as the son of a prominent attorney and as a boy, he therefore came into contact with prominent attorneys such as Earl Warren. He served as a page in the California State Senate as a youngster.[2]

He received his B.A. in Political Science from Stanford University in 1958. He also spent part of his undergraduate time his senior year at the London School of Economics[2] before earning an LL.B from Harvard Law School in 1961.

Kennedy was in private practice in San Francisco, California, from 1961-1963, then took over his father's practice in Sacramento, California, from 1963-1975 following his father's death.[2] From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law and currently continues teaching law students (including legal seminars during McGeorge's European summer sessions in Salzburg, Austria). He remains Pacific McGeorge's longest-serving active faculty member.

During Kennedy's time as a California legal professor and attorney, he assisted then-California Governor Ronald Reagan with drafting a state tax proposal.[2]

Kennedy has served in numerous positions during his career, including the California Army National Guard in 1961 and the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987-1988. He also served on two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities (subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct) from 1979-1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979-1990, which he chaired from 1982-1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Gerald Ford in 1975, upon the recommendation of Reagan.[2]

[edit] Appointment
Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court after Reagan's failed attempts at placing Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg there.[3][4]

While vetting Kennedy for potential nomination, some of Reagan's Justice Department lawyers said Kennedy was too eager to put courts in disputes many conservatives would rather leave to legislatures, and to identify rights not expressly written in the Constitution.[5] Kennedy's stance in favor of privacy rights drew criticism; Kennedy cited Roe v. Wade and other privacy right cases favorably, which one lawyer called "really very distressing".[6]

In another of the opinions Kennedy wrote before coming to the Supreme Court, he criticized (in dissent) the police for bribing a child into showing them where the child's mother hid her heroin; Kennedy wrote that "indifference to personal liberty is but the precursor of the state's hostility to it."[7] The Reagan lawyers also criticized Kennedy for citing a report from Amnesty International to bolster his views in that case.[7]

Another lawyer pointed out "Generally, [Kennedy] seems to favor the judiciary in any contest between the judiciary and another branch."[7]

Kennedy endorsed Griswold as well as the right to privacy, calling it "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'Beyond this line you may not go.'"[8] This gave Kennedy more bipartisan support than Bork and Ginsburg. The Senate confirmed him by a vote of 97 to 0.[8]

[edit] Supreme Court tenure

[edit] Ideology
Appointed by a Republican president, Kennedy’s tenure on the Court has seen him take a somewhat mixed ideological path; he usually takes a conservative viewpoint, but sometimes has looked at cases individually.[2]

Kennedy, or Sandra Day O'Connor, or both of them, have served as one of two swing voters in many 5-4 decisions during the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. On issues of religion, he holds to a far less separationist reading of the Establishment Clause than did Sandra Day O'Connor, favoring a "Coercion Test" that he detailed in County of Allegheny v. ACLU.[citation needed]

Kennedy supports a broad reading of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means he supports a constitutional right to abortion in principle, though he has voted to uphold several restrictions on that right, including laws to prohibit partial-birth abortions. He is "tough on crime" and opposes creating constitutional restrictions on the police, especially in Fourth Amendment cases involving searches for illegal drugs, although there are some exceptions, such as his concurrence in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. He opposes affirmative action as promoting stereotypes of minorities.[citation needed] He also takes a very broad view of constitutional protection for speech under the First Amendment,[citation needed] invalidating a congressional law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography in the 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU.[9]

[edit] Abortion
In 1990, Justice Kennedy upheld a restriction on abortion for minors; it required both parents to consent to the procedure. The case was Hodgson v. Minnesota.

In 1992, he joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's controlling plurality opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which re-affirmed in principle (though not in many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by the anti-Roe presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy had stated at least as early as 1989 that, in order to uphold precedent, he might not overrule Roe; he had also taught Roe as a professor for fifteen years.[10] At the same time, Kennedy reportedly had considered overturning Roe, according to court insiders, but in the end decided to uphold restrictions without overturning precedent.[11]

In later abortion decisions, it became apparent that Kennedy thought Casey had narrowed the Roe decision and allowed more restrictions. Because of a changed composition on the Court under President Clinton, Kennedy was no longer the fifth vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Thus, O'Connor became the Justice who defined the meaning of Casey in subsequent cases while Kennedy was relegated to dissents in trying to explain what he thought the Casey holding meant. For example, Kennedy dissented in the 2000 decision of Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down laws criminalizing partial-birth abortion.

After the judicial appointments of President George W. Bush, Justice Kennedy again became the needed fifth vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Since Kennedy's conception of abortion rights is more narrow than O'Connor's, this has led to a slightly more lenient review of abortion restrictions since 2006. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in 2007's Gonzales v. Carhart, which held that a federal law criminalizing partial birth abortion did not violate the principles of Casey because it did not impose an "undue burden." The decision did not expressly overrule Stenberg, although many commentators see it having that effect.[1]

[edit] Gay rights and homosexuality
Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. He wrote the Court's opinion in the controversial 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he authored the Court's opinion Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal prohibitions against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous contrary ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In doing so, however, he was very careful to limit the extent of the opinion, declaring that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. Lawrence also controversially referred to foreign laws, specifically ones enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights, in justifying its result. Kennedy voted, with 4 other Justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000.

[edit] Capital punishment
Kennedy has generally voted to restrict the use of the death penalty. With the Court's majority in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, he held unconstitutional the execution of the mentally ill and those under 18 at the time of the crime. However, in Kansas v. Marsh, he declined to join the dissent, which questioned the overall "soundness" of the existing capital punishment system. His opinion for the Court in Roper, as in Lawrence, made extensive reference to international law, drawing the ire of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who called Kennedy's opinion "incredibly outrageous" but stopped short of calling for his impeachment.[citation needed]

On June 25, 2008, Kennedy authored the 5-4 majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana. The opinion, which was joined by the court's four more liberal judges, held that "[t]he Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death." The opinion went on to state, "The court concludes that there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder, on the one hand, and non-homicide crimes against individuals, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot compare to murder in their severity and irrevocability." The opinion concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken." Thus, this ruling is expected to effectively limit the use of the death penalty for a crime against an individual not involving murder. However, it is important to note that this decision is unlikely to impact the use of the death penalty in relation to military justice or for crimes against the state such as terrorism, espionage, or treason.

Conservative commentator Matthew Continetti called the 2008 Kennedy v. Louisiana ruling, which held that the death penalty could not be applied to lesser crimes than homicide, "appalling," writing, "The intellectual backflips Justice Kennedy performed in his opinion would be impressive if they weren't so offensive to constitutionalist sensibilities."[12]

[edit] Gun control
Kennedy most recently ruled on June 26, 2008, with the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. At issue in the case was whether Washington, D.C.'s ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes. Kennedy's decision had him siding with the traditionally "conservative" side of the court. The decision came the day after the Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which Kennedy sided with the traditionally liberal justices.

[edit] Habeas Corpus
On June 12, 2008, Kennedy wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. The case challenged the legality of Boumediene’s detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. He was joined by the four more liberal judges in finding that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus applies to persons held in Guantanamo Bay and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory. They also found that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.[13][14][15][16]

The Court also concluded that the detainees are not required to exhaust review procedures in the court of appeals before pursuing habeas corpus actions in the district court. In the majority ruling Justice Kennedy called the Combatant Status Review Tribunals "inadequate."[13][14][15][16] He explained, “to hold that the political branches may switch the constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, 'say what the law is.'”[17] The decision struck down section seven (7) of the MCA but left intact the Detainee Treatment Act. In a concurring opinion, Justice Souter stressed the fact that the prisoners involved have been imprisoned for as many as six years.[18]

[edit] Other issues
On the issue of the limits of free speech, Kennedy joined a majority to uphold the protection of flag burning in the controversial case of Texas v. Johnson.[19] Kennedy would write that "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."[20]

Kennedy has joined with Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and invalidating federal and state affirmative action programs. He ruled with the majority on Equal Protection grounds in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ceased continuing recounts in the 2000 presidential election and ended the legal challenge to the election of President George W. Bush.

In the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case, he joined the liberal members of the Court (along with conservative Justice Scalia) in permitting the federal government to prohibit the use of medical marijuana, even in states in which it is legal.[21] Several weeks later, in the controversial case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005), he joined the four more liberal justices in supporting the local government's power to take private property for economic development through the use of eminent domain.[22]

[edit] Analysis of Supreme Court tenure
Kennedy has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005.[23] In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time - more than any other justice.[23]

According to legal writer Jeffrey Toobin, starting in 2003, Kennedy also became a leading proponent of the use of foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution.[24] Toobin sees this consideration of foreign law as the biggest factor behind Kennedy's occasional breaking with his most conservative colleagues.[24] The use of foreign law in Supreme Court opinions dates back to at least 1829, though according to Toobin, its use in interpreting the Constitution on "basic questions of individual liberties" began only in the late 1990s.[25] Especially after 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previously been known as the court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to get that title for himself. Kennedy is more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, and intensely dislikes being labeled a "swing vote."[23]

[edit] Conservative Criticism
Kennedy attracts the ire of conservatives when he does not vote with his more rightist colleagues. According to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, conservatives view Kennedy's pro-gay-rights and pro-abortion rulings as betrayals.[24] In 2005, associate professor of law David M. Wagner called Kennedy "The worst of Ronald Reagan's appointees to the Court", and claimed he abandoned his conservative principles beginning in the 1990s in order to gain "the plaudits of the media and the Georgetown A-list."[26] In 2008, conservative commentator Rich Lowry called Kennedy the Supreme Court's "worst justice", writing that his written opinions "have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution", and amount to "making it up as he goes along."[27] According to legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, the "bitter" quality of some movement conservatives' views on Kennedy stems from his eventual rethinking of positions on abortion, religion, and the death penalty (which Kennedy believes should not be applied to juveniles or the mentally challenged).[28]

[edit] Outside activities
Kennedy has been active off the bench as well, calling for reform of overcrowded American prisons in a speech before the American Bar Association. He spends his summers in Salzburg, Austria, where he teaches international and American law at the University of Salzburg for the McGeorge School of Law international program and often attends the large yearly international judges conference held there. Defending his use of international law, Kennedy told the September 12, 2005, issue of The New Yorker, "Why should world opinion care that the American Administration wants to bring freedom to oppressed peoples? Is that not because there’s some underlying common mutual interest, some underlying common shared idea, some underlying common shared aspiration, underlying unified concept of what human dignity means? I think that’s what we’re trying to tell the rest of the world, anyway.”

Justice Kennedy is one of twelve Catholic justices – out of the 110 total – in the history of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court
Change courtSupreme District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Div 1 District 4 Div 2 District 4 Div 3 District 5 District 6

Court data last updated: 12/05/2008 09:53 PM

Case Summary Docket Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys Lower Court
Docket (Register of Actions)

Case Number S168690 Date Description Notes
12/03/2008 Petition for mandate/prohibition & stay filed (civil) Petitioners Gail Lightfoot, etal ~Attorney Orly Taitz

12/03/2008 Received: Amended Proof of Service to Petition

12/05/2008 Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition & stay denied

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.