Philip J Berg provided a press release on Friday, November 7, 2008. Here is Mr. Berg’s press release:
“U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) – 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 filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.
Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”
Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.
The Defendants’ response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.
# # #
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com philjberg@obamacrimes.com ”
Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:
Citizen WElls 
Check this out from the We The People Foundation:
WTP.org Open Letter to President-elect Obama, to be Published in USA Today Next Week
–Phil
CW,
pdf is missing.
TKU
Get PDF from
http://obamacrimes.com
The November 7, 2008 New York Times, “months after the fact, has finally reported that the Aug. 7 invasion of South Ossetia by the Georgian military, was an unprovoked act, targeting innocent civilians, and foreign peacekeepers.”
It had been posted previously that the Georgian government was installed and owned by George Soros and his British Foreign Office controller, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. The New York Times, like the most of the American mainstream media, had portrayed Georgia as the victims of a Russian invasion. Now, the New York Times reports that Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (O.S.C.E.) monitors, who were in South Ossetia at the moment of the Georgian attacks, have provided detailed eyewitness accounts that make it clear that the Georgian government of Mikhail Saakashvili was the aggressor all along.
The Times story contained details from O.S.C.E. briefings by two officials, Ryan Grist and Stephen Young, both retired British officers, who were heading up the O.S.C.E. monitoring team, and were able to confirm that the Georgian invasion and indiscriminate rocket fire on civilian neighborhoods in the South Ossetian capital, all took place before any Russian military reinforcements entered the enclave. The eyewitness accounts by the O.S.C.E. monitors also shows the key Georgian government claim, that South Ossetians had been firing rockets into Georgian villages to have been a lie.
The New York Times, like the most of the American mainstream media had covered this up. Why release it now?
It could be as simple as: it was breaking internationally anyway.
Or, it could have to do with a behind the scenes battle with Obama’s puppet masters to gain control of the strings? This issue/story is a good one for that. It involves Russia who is, and has been, trying to get us to establish a “New Bretton Woods” agreement NOT in line with the proposed British model. It involves George Soros, Obama’s most visible controller, and it involves Britain, Soros’ controller.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Just what I need; another reason to turn into a conspiracy theorist LOL
MSM has covered up EVERYTHING for a reason I cannot grasp, yet.
The way my mind is working these days, this financial crisis was a planned/controlled Soros/Obama “September Surpise”.
great we may have a usurper in high office this obama is orrogant beyond belief just bring the birth certifacate to the judges end of problem just bring the GDthing I have no problem bringing mine when needed.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15439.html
Obama raising cash for administration
The campaign is over, but President-elect Barack Obama is still raising cash — this time to help fund his move into the Oval Office.
Though Team Obama is set to receive $6.3 million in taxpayer funds for its transition efforts, it also has created a nonprofit corporation to supplement Uncle Sam’s cash with private donations.
Obama, a Democrat who shattered fundraising records during his campaign against Republican John McCain, is soliciting contributions of up to $5,000-per-person to the nonprofit, the Obama-Biden Transition Project, which is set up under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Service code.
A source familiar with the nonprofit said Obama, who during the campaign cast himself as a crusader against special interest money in politics, will not accept contributions from lobbyists or corporations for the transition nonprofit.
It’s been standard practice for incoming presidents since at least Ronald Reagan in 1980 to seek private donations to help set up their administration, but that doesn’t make it any more palatable to advocates for reducing the influence of money in politics.
“You have to be very wary,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, which pushes for stricter campaign finance rules. “Any time you have that combination of contributions and politicians, the opportunity to use that as a means of gaining access is a threat.”
With Obama, McGehee said she’s “hopeful, given his rhetoric, that he will ensure that every contribution is not only disclosed but done so in a searchable, quick database, so all this information is available very quickly and very transparently.”
Disclosure takes on added urgency, she said, given Obama’s fundraising prowess.
Neither the Obama campaign nor the source familiar with the nonprofit would say whether the transition non-profit group would disclose information on its donors before Obama takes the oath of office.
Under a 1988 law, known as the President Transitions Effectiveness Act, Obama will be required to disclose to the General Services Administration the date, source and amount of all contributors to his transition nonprofit by Feb. 20 — by which time he will have been in office for one month.
According to the legislative language justifying the act, Reagan in 1980 raised $1.25 million for his transition activities without reporting where he got or spent the money, “creating the potential for hidden conflicts of interest.”
Private transition money is helpful because the millions provided by the government under the Act aren’t enough to pay all the folks necessary to vet prospective appointees, study agencies and chart policy plans, but also because the public money can’t be used for certain expenses including relocating new hires, according to former Federal Election Commission chairman Michael Toner, who ran the legal shop for the Bush-Cheney transition in 2000.
Since contributions to the transition committee don’t count as political donations, Toner said Obama will be able to ask for donations from big donors who gave the maximum $4,600 to his presidential campaign.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean the transition money is easy pickings, said Toner, who pointed out that Obama will have to raised transition cash and private donations to pay for his inauguration at a time when donors may be tapped out or focusing on holiday spending.
“You’ve raised all of this money for the campaign and then you turn around and start raising money for the transition and the inaugural at the same time,” said Toner. “It can be a challenging fundraising environment. But maybe it won’t be challenging for them.
Obama revolutionized presidential fundraising, relying on a wide network of online donors to pull in $605 million through the end of September, half of which came from small donors.
But Obama, who has pushed to bolster political money disclosure rules, took heat from good government groups for breaking a promise to take public funding for his general election campaign, which would have forced him to stop raising money after accepting the nomination, and for refusing to voluntarily report the names, addresses and occupations of his small donors. Federal election law only require campaigns to disclose the details of donors who have given more than $200.
CW, as a highly regarded investigative journalist, do you feel it is appropriate to post comments complaining complete, copyrighted articles from other sites like politico? You may want to cut back on that, and let jeaniejo know that’s not exactly legal.
Judge Souter, in giving Obama till Dec 1 to respond, may just be trying to run the clock out just like what Judge Surrick did to Berg.
Pete,
Isn’t it okay if she gives CREDIT to those who published the article AND supplies the link?
Do you have on hand the LEGAL ramifications of this?
Geesh.
nov 5th chicago illinois
evening pick 3 (666)
evening pick 4(7779)
the market crashed in september
777 points.
Offhand I would say that neither the Supreme Court nor the electors will countermand a vote of the people based on a claim with no evidence; namely that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Obama and his lawyers have until December 1 to respond to the Writ of Certiorari. Being a retired lawyer, I would think the Writ will be granted and the constitutional issue regarding Obama’s United States’ citizenship will be heard by the Supreme Court. The Rule of Law will ultimately trump any November election results should the Supreme Court determine Obama is constitutionally unqualified to be President due to lack of United States citizenship as specifically set forth in the United States Constitution.
The following quote was in an email . . . it fits our country’s catch 22 Obama unanswered question. I pray we have the strength and wisdom to face the citizenship truth and take steps to above all, protect our American Constitution. I believe it will be the path of least resistance in the long run. Otherwise, the unthinkable. Foreigners running our country.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ”
— Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda,
> 1933-1945
What does Mr. Berg say to the accusations being made by Andy Martin and others that he is actually running a diversion FOR Obama by making such a poor legal case and making those who DO believe in Obama’s ineligibility look like fools?
From what I have seen, read and heard, I believe Mr. Berg has more credibility.
PS-Throughout my investigations I have examined the message and not tried to “shoot the messenger”.
I always go back to criminal cases. Prosecutors routinely use people with little credibility but who are in the possession of factual evidence. Stuart Levine is a good example.