Monthly Archives: January 2009

LIGHTFOOT, GAIL, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE, January 26, 2009, US Supreme Court, Stay denied, Chief Justice, John Roberts, Dr. Orly Taitz

** Update Below **

Dr. Orly Taitz’ Application for stay in Lightfoot Vs Bowen
has been denied by the US Supreme Court:

The application for stay addressed to The Chief Justice
and referred to the Court is denied.

Thanks to Zach for the heads up.

** UPDATE from DR. Orly Taitz **

For immediate press release
Dear fellow Americans and Patriots,
as you probably know, in my case Lightfoot v Bowen I filed a petition for emergency stay and asked it to be treated as a writ of certiorari based on Bush v Gore 2000 precedent. The Supreme Court has logged this petition as an application for stay pending filing a writ of certiorari. Since they denied the emergency petition today, it gives me an opportunity to file immediately the actual Writ of Certiorari and it will be done within a few days.
However, a number of things have transpired lately.
First, an exparte private closed door meeting between 8 out of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court (Justice Samuel Alito was not present) with Mr. Barry Soetoro-Barack Hussein Obama. I will file a motion to the Chief Jastice to compel the records of this private meeting, that was held only a few days before my case was supposed to be heard, where the plaintiffs state that Mr. Soetoro-Obama is illegitimate for presidency due to the fact that his father was a foreign subject and there is no evidence that Mr. Obama was really born in Hawaii, since the state of Hawaii statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian certification of live birth and such certification can be obtained based on an affidavit of one relative only. In spite of 32 legal actions filed around the country, Mr. Soetoro-Obama refused to provide his original birth certificate that is sealed in Hawaii, no hospital in Hawaii could find any records of Mr. Obama ever being born there and affidavits were given by a number of parties in Kenya, stating that he was born in Kenya. We believe that Mr. Obama has spent over $800,000 on numerous attorneys to keep his original birth certificate sealed, because the original vault birth certificate does not provide any corroborating evidence from any hospital about him being born there.
Additionally, Mr. Obama has immigrated to Indonesia as a child with his mother and step-father Lolo Soetoro and his school records from Indonesia show his legal name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia. Due to the fact that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Mr. Soetoro -Obama’s parents had to relinquish his US citizenship in order to obtain his Indonesian Citizenship. There is ample evidence that Mr. Soetoro-Obama has travelled on his Indonesian passport up to the time he became US Senator, whereby he reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship as an adult.
The swearing of Mr. Obama is null and void due to the fact that he was sworn in on a name that is not legally his name and he is a foreign subject from birth and now and never qualified as a Natural Born US Citizen
On Wednesday, January the 21st, when the Supreme Court reopened for business after inauguration, somebody deleted from the external docket all information about my case. Millions of people around the country and around the world watched that docket. A number of concerned parties have called the Supreme Court and got no explanation. Other cases were on the docket. Finally, information about my case was re-entered on the docket. I will be demanding from the Chief Justice John Roberts an immediate full investigation, as to how the information about a case of National and World importance, dealing with Mr Soetoro- Obama’s illegitimacy for Presidency, disappeared from the docket of the Supreme Court. Incidentally an article about me and the cases I am handling, has disappeared from the Wikipedia. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the Congressional and Senatorial Judicial committees for full investigation and hearing as well as FBI and US attorney’s offices.
I would ask all of the citizens that observed this disappearing and reappearing of information on the docket of SCOTUS to write affidavits to that extend. Please go to the nearest UPS store. They usually have notary public on the premises. Have your signature notarised and have the affidavit scanned and e-mailed to me.
Watergate investigation started with a small hotel braking. Obamagate Congressional and Senatorial investigation will start with this breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States and illegal deletion of all the information about my case from the external public docket.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Read more here:

Alan Keyes, Obama, oaths and the end of constitutional government,, January 20, 2009, Alan Keyes and John Haskins, US Constitution, Supreme Law, United States, Obama not eligible

God bless Alan Keyes

From World Net Daily:
“Obama, oaths and the end of constitutional government”
“Posted: January 20, 2009
By Alan Keyes and John Haskins”
“Now steps onto the stage of world history a man apparently quite
conscious that the Supreme Law of the United States prevents him
from being president of the United States.

For why else would anyone hire lawyers and expend millions of
dollars to avoid producing a $12.50 birth certificate to show
eligibility under the Constitution? ‘Midst the rhythmic chants of
a delirious, sycophantic media, inaugural splendor will substitute
for simple proof that the United States of America will have a
constitutionally legitimate president.

If Obama is not eligible, legally, the United States of America
will have no president. A usurper will wield such power as few men
have ever held, having no constitutional warrant. However beloved of
the media or adored by racialist groupies, and irrespective of
public support, Obama will be a tyrant, in the original sense of the
word (from the Greek tyrannos meaning one who wields power to which
he has no lawful claim). As he sends young soldiers to die, even the
appearance of his usurpation of presidential powers will insult their
sacrifice and thwart the Constitution they give their all to preserve.
Even as he utters the oath – hand on Lincoln’s Bible – he will betray
it, not upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution, but
subverting it.

The elites insist that we should pretend to be convinced by an
exhibition of a “certificate of live birth” via the Internet, lacking
the very information the Constitution requires. On the strength of
this we are to exercise blind faith and risk the consequences of an
unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency?

“Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the
constitution,” Jefferson warned us. Caesar rose to power on the
passions of men, and killed a republic. Napoleon did the same. So did
Hitler, with strong support from the secularized, university-educated
elite. But the elites approve as Obama whistles past the Constitution,
just as they did when Mitt Romney flushed away the Constitution he’d
sworn to uphold. They regard the Supreme Law of the United States as
a dead letter, “living and breathing” of course, which is their code
for dead and buried.

Like the sophisticated, educated elites in Weimar, Germany, they long
to live under what they presume will be a benevolent dictatorship.
This one will be different, they are quite sure: soft, touchy-feely,
agreeably in tune with the restless, ever-mutating consensus of the
chattering class. Thus was it in human history, until the Declaration
birthed our state and federal constitutions, now just archaic
platitudes, to shape naïve youths in American History classes as
docile subjects of bureaucratic tyranny.

It would not be hard to clarify Obama’s eligibility to be president.
The Constitution provided an entire branch of government to adjudicate
constitutional questions. But judges have concocted various “rules”
over the years that they cite as their license to violate the
Constitution and to excuse their failure to uphold it. These they now
use to claim that Americans lack standing to ask their courts for a
judgment of fact required by our Supreme Law. They dismiss lawsuits
that ask only that judges fulfill their oaths and uphold the
Constitution. Are solemn oaths now meaningless?

Whether rooted in incompetence, cowardice or calculated cynicism,
these dismissals of valid lawsuits are willful subversions of the
Constitution, the inevitable result of legal education that
substitutes judicial decrees for the authority of real laws and

Read more here:

Restore the Constitutional Republic, Dean Haskins, January 22, 2009, Plains radio,Chalice show, Constitutional roots, Galvanize organizations, Citizen Wells

I have worked with Dean Haskins and the organization on several
projects and we are in regular contact. Dean just sent this:
“The chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic, Dean Haskins,
will be on the Crystal Chalice Show (Plains Radio) tonight,
Thursday, January 22, from 7:00-7:30 CST (8:00-8:30 EST). 
Chalice and Dean will be discussing the efforts underway by Restore
the Constitutional Republic to galvanize the numerous organizations
across the country that have similar motivations and intentions to
take our country back to its constitutional roots.”

“Restore the Constitutional Republic is an organization dedicated
to those patriots who recognize that our government has become
unresponsive to the will of those who desire . . . no, demand . . .
that our Constitution be upheld, defended, and preserved”

Federal Grand Jury, 4th branch of government, Leo Donofrio, 5th Amendment, US Constitution, Constitutional power, We the people, US Supreme Court has upheld, Creighton Law Review, American Juror, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 1946, Rule 7

From Leo Donofrio:

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

[I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:


My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

The 5th Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”

So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”

No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “

That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.

The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:


“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the
Creighton Law Review as well:

“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”

The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.”

Philip J Berg V Obama, January 21, 2009, Application for stay denied, Justice Scalia, Obama not eligible, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Case 08A505

The corrupt, biased, inept, UnAmerican, US Supreme Court
has denied the Application for stay in the Philip J Berg
Vs Obama case. Yes, the same court that has as Chief Justice
John Roberts, the man that swore in an ineligible president

That’s right, the buck stops here. There will be no politically
correct BS on this blog. The US Supreme Court should have ruled
on several matters months ago, including but not limited to,
the following:

  • State responsibilities in presidential elections.
  • Clarification of the provision in the US Constitution requiring
    a president to be a natural born citizen.

This is part of their responsibility and they failed us.

From the US Supreme Court

The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and
referred to the Court is denied.

For more on this case and other court cases:

Joe Biden president, Obama not qualified, Inauguration hoax, January 20, 2009, 20th Amendment rules, US Constitution, Evidence surfaces, John Roberts and Obama stumble, US Congress decides, Obama Indonesian citizen

Joe Biden



Until further notice

The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution states “or if the
President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice
President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified

Barack Obama is not qualified to be president and therefore
per the 20th Amendment, Joe Biden is president until Congress
makes a further determination. Furthermore, aside from the
vast evidence that we have that Obama is not a Natural Born
Citizen and no legal evidence to the contrary from Obama, a
little birdie tells me that some new certified evidence has
come to the surface that is conclusive evidence against Obama
being qualified.

Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.


Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.


Philip J Berg, Press release, January 20, 2009, Sad day for America, Obama usurper, Obama not qualified, Berg vs Obama active, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Hoax, Nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution

Here is the latest press release from Philip J Berg:

“01/20/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg states that the Inauguration of Obama today will be recognized as a “Sad Day” for America when it is proven that Obama is “not qualified” pursuant to the U.S. Constitution to be President. Today begins a “Usurper” as President Obama is “ineligible” to be President as Obama is “not” “natural born.” We are headed for a “Constitutional Crisis.”

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/20/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is still pending as well as two [2] other cases regarding the question as to whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President.
Berg stated, “It is a Sad Day for America as Obama is ‘not qualified’ to be President pursuant to ‘our’ United States Constitution.  Today, unfortunately, a ‘Usurper,’ Obama, takes the oath of office as President and every law he signs and appointment he makes will be void.  It is regretful that Obama has permitted this to happen as he knows he is ‘not natural born’ and this is the greatest ‘Hoax’ ever placed upon the citizens of the United States of America in 230 years.”

Berg continued, “I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out.  There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!”

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire           

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005    ”