Originally published December 22, 2008, at politicsunlocked.com
United States Supreme Court
Photo by dbking licensed http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/
A little known aspect of the judicial system was made a bit more public recently, as courts have rejected lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidential election.
Anthony Martin-Trigona, a documented legal system abuser, did it again, filing a lawsuit regarding Obama’s citizenship in Hawaii state court. Federal courts have already imposed rules barring him from bringing any more frivolous claims to their courts.
A federal appeals court has previously described Martin-Trigona’s actions and called out the harm caused by people who use our justice system for their own personal agenda without regard to the legal validity of their claims.
“To those who follow the business of the courts, the appellant needs no introduction. He is the source of literally hundreds of lawsuits, motions and miscellaneous pleadings, all but a small fraction of which lack any merit whatsoever. Viewing Martin-Trigona’s litigious conduct in its entirety yields the inescapable conclusion that he persistently resorts to legal processes without regard to the merits of the claims asserted and that he invokes those processes largely to harass persons who have unluckily crossed his path.”
And the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals continued:
“Martin-Trigona is known to have filed over 250 civil actions, appeals, and other matters throughout the United States, which have been pursued with ‘persistence, viciousness, and general disregard for decency and logic.’ He has used legal pleadings to ventilate his contempt and hatred of persons of Jewish heritage and to level accusations which ‘have often been personal, have often emphasized racial or religious affiliations, and have often involved the members of . . . judges’ and counsel’s families.’ The purpose, nature and effect of his resort to multiple litigation has been to involve as many persons in as many confounding legal processes as possible. . . . Martin-Trigona’s voluminous filings have ‘inundated’ the District of Connecticut and his activities have burdened judicial operations to the point of impairing the administration of justice. Finally, Martin-Trigona has not desisted from his course of vexatious litigation but has expressly stated his intent to file yet more actions.”
Fox News put Martin-Trigona on the air during the campaign to impugn Obama. The real offense, political positions aside, was that a person known for such extensive and frivolous abuse of the American legal system was given the credibility of broadcast time.
But he is not alone. Seventeen lawsuits (so far) have been filed in various jurisdictions, claiming Barack Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, and thus, cannot become president.
The facts:
Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Obama’s birth certificate, conveying U.S. citizenship and noting birth in Hawaii’s capital, Honolulu, has been examined by the State of Hawaii and found to be authentic.
Case closed.
None-the-less, seventeen individuals have filed suit, and upon rejection of their claims by trial judges, haveappealed as high as the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal basis of the challenges is Article II of the U.S. Constitution, requiring a president to be a natural-born citizen. Precious resources are used, briefs read, arguments heard, all to give every possible advantage to litigants who want their day in court. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected two petitions that have made it to the court for consideration.
The “natural-born citizen” clause has received publicity in recent years with California Republican GovernorArnold Schwarzenegger, who is an Austrian-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, appearing to emerge as apresidential hopeful, except for Article II. Discussion was also prompted by the candidacy of Republican Presidential aspirant John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. military family. McCain, however, was a citizen at birth, via his parents, both citizens and the status of the U.S.-controlled Canal Zone.
Can you imagine challenges to the birth certificates of George W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan?
An archive of Marc Seltzer's writing about US Supreme Court cases and blogging on political topics 
The US Supreme Court has NOT rejected the petitions. It has merely ruled that , up to now, those bringing the actions “..did not have standing.” Unlike the Court Liberals who re-invent the Constitution with every decision, the Conservayive Judges follow the constitution even when it goes against their beliefs. But there is a suit in the pipeline in which the person involved, by any judicial criteria, has “standing.” Question: Why is Obama spending millions to quash such requests–requests such as obtaining a copy of Obama’s application to Occidental College; an application which may decribe Obama as a “..Foreign Exchange Student.”
As far as Hawaiian Birth Certificates are concerned, everyone knows they aren’t worth the “Leis” (did I spell that correctly, or should it be ‘Lies’) they’re printed on.
There are questions regarding the validity of Obama’s citizenship. The courts should allow ALL evidence to be put on the table for a FAIR and JUST decision instead of all these ‘legal’ games being played to obstruct the truth. This is what has ‘clogged’ the courts: legal game playing. Get back to TRUTHS and EVIDENCE on this matter and put aside obstruction of Justice for once. Geez!
You are pathetic! The state of Hawaii did NOT say the birth certificate was from Hawaii. The form presented on the website was a “CERTIFICATION of Live Birth”. This is the form that was given to parents of children that were born OUTSIDE of the United States.
What is the fear that you Obama supporters have? Why not release his documents, as all other candidates have done, and get this issue over with? The only reason to not do it is because the truth will come out. If it does Obama will be shown to be the scum that he is, and the media will be found out to be the ones that helped him keep the truth from the voters.
I assume this that this is a comment from someone who refuses to accept Obama as president. If I am wrong, show me evidence to support your claims. There are several, and my reading of the facts, with reinforcement from factcheck.org, from pronouncements by courts, and by legitimate journalists is that these statements are not true. Prove me wrong.