I don't have the info on other states at hand but California SOS does check eligibility. From Keyes v Bowen (I think motion to dismiss):



So, I doubt an ineligible person has ever made it on the ballot.

Odd that he has glommed onto Prof. Tokaji's article in the University of Michigan Law Review, The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?1, but completely ignores Prof. Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, in the same issue.2 Prof. Solum explored the question of the original meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen," writing (in the autumn of 2008) with reference to John McCain's eligibility.



(Emphasis added). His conclusion? That it is possible -- even probable -- that the original meaning is indeterminate, lost in history...

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Some states do require that the filing include an affidavit of eligibility. I believe that there's a copy of the affidavit Obama filed in one state or another floating around somewhere. The affidavit would have been somewhere along the lines of, "I am a natural-born citizen of the United States and have lived in the US for 14 years."

I can only suppose he had been reading de Vattel.

Sotomayor, and now Andre Davis
By paralegalnm

Barack Hussein Obama is predictably appointing liberal judges. Sotomayor, an inferior intellect, admits to being the affirmative action nominee.

Now, the 4th Circuit Ct. of Appeals can look forward to another patently overturned judicial nominee, Maryland’s Andre Davis.

Davis is known for bending the law, if not outright violating logical progression of jurisprudence in order to support defense attorneys’ motions to bar evidence . . . he is more an advocate than a judge . . . as is Sotomayor.

realist Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 15, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Reply

“Note Judge Surrick’s dismissal of Berg vs Obama, over a week after Obama failed to respond to Berg’s Rule 36 Request for Admissions. Rule 36 specifically states that failure to respond in 30-days “conclusively establishes” the admissions as fact.”

Someone “trained as a paralegal” and, as you also claim, some law school, should know that there was a Motion to Dismiss pending and there was no response due to the RFA.

* paralegalnm Says:
June 15, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Reply

1) There was no ’some law school.’ While my pre-law program was ABA certified, the credits only applied to a B.A. I did have a scholarship waiting for me upon passing the LSAT.

2) As for the Motion for Dismissal . . . there is always a motion to dismiss on standing, jurisdiction and no cause of action. That is standard procedure in any defense reply. My point, for your realistic consideration, is if Judge Surrick was ethical in filing his Dismissal on Standing once the Rule 36 calendar ran out?

Standing is discretionary . . . Rule 36 is, well . . . a rule.

# realist Says:
June 15, 2009 at 8:17 pm | Reply

I understand a Motion to Dismiss is lawyering 101. My point is that with that motion pending there is no obligation to respond to the Rule 36 requests, and saying there is, as Berg did at the time and others have done and are still doing is misleading and misinformation, as much is in these birther assertions on the net and in pleadings.

To answer your question regarding Judge Surrick directly, of course it was proper to rule on standing at that time, as until there was a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the requests were a moot point. If he’d not dismissed, then the clock would have started again at that time regarding response times.

As an aside, do you have a opinion what’s going to happen regarding Orly’s Keyes case regarding her deficiency with service?

emphasis mine

(d) Timing and Sequence of Discovery.

(1) Timing.

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.

I didn't realize the LSAT was Pass/Fail. Guess I overprepped for it.

When did the LSAT go pass/fail??? Wow, these kids have it soooooo easy!

Understanding Your Score
Your LSAT score is based on the number of questions answered correctly (the raw score). There is no deduction for incorrect answers, nor are individual questions on the various test sections weighted differently. Raw scores are converted to an LSAT scale that ranges from 120 to 180, with 120 being the lowest possible score and 180 the highest possible score. This is done through a statistical procedure known as equating, a method that adjusts for minor differences in difficulty between test forms.

The LSAT, like any admission test, is not a perfect predictor of law school performance. The predictive power of an admission test is limited by many factors, such as the complexity of the skills the test is designed to measure and the unmeasurable factors that can affect students’ performances, such as motivation, physical and mental health, or work and family responsibilities. In spite of these factors, the LSAT compares very favorably with admission tests used in other graduate and professional fields of study.

# paralegalnm Says:
June 15, 2009 at 9:38 pm | Reply

I beg to differ. A standard def motion to dismiss does not suspend all other pre-trial motions and requests. Surrick did not order a delay on Admissions . . . he just filed the dismissal after the clock ran . . . which, to a reasonable mind, is highly prejudicial to the degree of political favoritism. That is why I suggested it was unethical.

Taitz and the clerk are arguing over the rules of serving a president. There was no fraud intended to claim a default judgment . . . we’ll just see how they work it out.


# realist Says:
June 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm | Reply

So Rule 26, which also is, well, a rule, does not apply in Berg v Obama in your opinion?

Rule 26(d) prohibited Berg from serving Requests for Admission prior to the initial disclosure conference with Obama’s counsel to fashion a proposed discovery plan:

(d) Timing and Sequence of Discovery.

(1) Timing.

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.

The Request for Admissions were served out of time, hence no obligation to respond absent a court order or stipulation.

To a reasonable mind, as the clock could not have begun ticking, there was no ruling after the clock ran.

As to the Taitz/Keyes matter, I never suggested there was any fraud intended.

# paralegalnm Says:
June 15, 2009 at 11:42 pm | Reply

True. The pre-trial calendar had not been set, and I think Berg requested an accelerated discovery, which was not approved.

BB, you snagged him.

An invalid service is sometimes considered dishonest to the def, if not a defrauding of the court.

If he's indeed assisting Orly would he suggest that in his follow-up to my prior post?

# realist Says:
June 15, 2009 at 11:49 pm | Reply

I understand the invalid service issue you mention above. I just wanted it clear I never suggested I was asserting Orly had committed fraud on the court. That’s not my call, certainly.

Nice visiting with you. I’m off this computer for the day, finally.

Next time I’m downtown, I’ll drop by your studio.

And now he knows I'm close...no more stuff about Judge Black and his putting half a dozen NM lawyers out of business.

It hasn't gone pass/fail.

120 to 180? Back in my day the score was only 10 to 48 and you had to walk to the testing center and back through the snow, uphill both ways.

Taitz and the clerk are arguing over the rules of serving a president.

Back in my day, yes.

Why would the clerk and Orly be arguing over the rules of serving a president when Orly claims she is serving Obama individually, not in his official capacity?

They had snow in Summeria?

paralegalnm Says:
June 16, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Reply

Due to ‘transient’ traffic between downtown and homeless services North of Lomas, the building doors are locked . . . I suggest you make an appointment and bring a cell phone.

Thanks for the interesting discussion . . . I will review Rule 26. We agree that Berg attempted an accelerated pre-trial discovery due to the upcoming election . . . Surrick ignored his request and let the clock run out, forcing Berg to file the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Also not a proper motion at the time. yesno?


Thus, the appearances of prejudging a discretionary matter of standing without allowing evidence of violations of constitutional law.


uhhhh...if one does not have standing, one does not get a free pass to engage in discovery. That's pretty simple.

On one hand, a discretionary issue . . . on the other hand, a pre-election violation of the highest law of the land.

Thus, the appearances of prejudging a discretionary matter of standing without allowing evidence of violations of constitutional law.