However, Supreme Court Rule 11 (the Court has its own set) deals with petitions for writs of certiorari which seek to bypass Courts of Appeal on questions that are of such urgency that the regular process cannot be followed, as in, for instance, the question of whether Barack Obama is eligible to be inaugurated as President before January 20, 2009. I think that’s the rule that is cited on the docket, rather than the general federal rule on sanctions for frivolous suits.

You can find the Supreme Court’s rules, and Supreme Court Rule 11, here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/2007rulesofthecourt.pdf

Note that I agree with your opinion of these suits in general, and am in no way a birth certificate truther.

2. Now the Supreme Court has rejected two separate suits that were already rejected by other courts. One is on for conference on January 9 — and it’s Berg’s again. On the docket there is a little note: “Rule 11.”

Is it possible the Supreme Court is tired of being inundated with FedEx packages, mail and e-mail, and they’ll make a ruling on Rule 11 against the case? Anyone an expert in reading Supreme Court dockets?

What about it? This is not a criminal or even a civil trial. This is whether a man is legally able to meet the requirements to be President as outlined in the US Constitution.

In other words, the people don’t have to prove that someone ISN’T eligible. The person has to prove they ARE eligible.

(And no, I am not saying Obama is eligible or not eligible. I just wish he would step up, release the document, and let us move forward.)

Second, Re: WND – to each, his (or her) own. I happen to find it to be a HIGHLY credible news source, far better than most of the leftist spin out there. I’ll drop further discussion of WND, but I had to add that since WND had two different comments disparaging it.

I think the arguments of the attorneys involved in the New Jersey and Connecticut suits make a persuasive case that by definition, to be a Natural Born citizen requires that both parents be US citizens. They are available here: Leo Donofrio, Esq. Neither is challenging Obama’s place of birth, and they are collaborating on the WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ case, which has been distributed for SCOTUS Conference of Friday, Dec. 12th.

Unlike Berg, Donofrio strikes me as a serious player, and his recent (just last Friday) unearthing of evidence that President Chester Arthur too was not a Natural Born citizen, is fascinating reading. ?Dave?

Those two items are completely reconcilable. The birth announcement means nothing. Why can’t a family post a birth announcement in a paper where many of one’s side of the family reside, even if the birth didn’t actually take place there? Second, Hawaii has a “certificate of live birth” that merely states that a birth has been registered, but says nothing about where it took place, the presiding doctor, etc. It is not at all the same thing as a birth certificate.

I’m not saying Obama was or was not born in Hawaii. I simply don’t know, and we’ve been provided no real proof. DBL, your argument was either poorly worded, or you do not understand the real issues at hand.

One thing I will stand behind is that I believe that if Obama really was born in Hawaii and has a proper birth certificate, then he has absolutely no regard for his country. All he needs to do is to produce a certified copy (or the original) of his birth certificate, with all of the proper information provided, and also prove that he (or his mother) had not given up his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia (I think that’s the right location where he went to school for some period of time, where it is a requirement to be a citizen of that country in order to attend). By not doing so, he is causing many state and government agencies to spend large amounts of money debating the issue and battling lawsuits. If he took those very simple steps, there could be no more discussion. But he refuses to do it. Why?