Philip J Berg lawsuit appeal, US Supreme Court, Update, November 19, 2008, Mr. Berg provides update, FEC waiver, Justice Souter ruling?

Jeff Schreiber spoke to Philip J Berg after the FEC filed a waiver of right to respond. Here are some exerpts
from Jeff Schreiber’s report:

“According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court.

Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents–Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission–were to respond to Berg’s petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday’s filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond.”

“This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg said. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.”

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama’s status as Illinois senator–a position from which he resigned this past weekend–could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department.”

“While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC’s attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama — the word “unorthodox” comes to mind. As does “shameful.” And yet, in these post-election times, especially considering the FEC’s decision not to audit Obama’s $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times.”

Read more of the article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

15 responses to “Philip J Berg lawsuit appeal, US Supreme Court, Update, November 19, 2008, Mr. Berg provides update, FEC waiver, Justice Souter ruling?

  1. I just checked her site.
    Could You erase the previous post?
    I thought she was an independent mind.

  2. Good Morning CW, I sent an email to all of the Electorals in Indiana asking them to support the Constitution requirements for President. This is what I received back, “Brenda I don’t represent you. I do however represent the people who voted for President Elect Barack Obama in the state of Indiana. Anthe the State did go from Red to Blue, did it not? Any think you have to further communicate with me is of no interest. Please refrain.” Cordelia Lewis-Burks. Then the next e-mail sent a picture of all the Presidents of the United States with the caption, One thing has changed” because it had Obama’s picture added. How do you get people like this to even question his qualifications? They do not care. All they care about is the fact that he is part black. By the way, this lady is black. I also have a question–why doesn’t she represent me? She is just an electoral, and I am a citizen of Indiana and the United States. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Brenda

  3. CW, I also just noticed this lady sent me 8 pictures of the Presidents with the caption “Don’t you just love it?” bkw

  4. Brenda.
    One of my next articles is about the Electoral College.
    I will post your comment and weave in Electoral College voting 101.
    Thanks

  5. Brenda,
    it is not only obvious, that she is is using race as a divider.
    But also she is very personal.
    Unprofessional.

    Kind of a “Big-Pay-back” Spirit.

  6. EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

    By Debbie Schlussel

    ****DebbieSchlussel.com ****

    Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

    It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

    But the release of Obama’s draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama’s claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.

    The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

    But the Selective Service System registration (“SSS Form 1”) and accompanying computer print-out (“SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:

    * Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008

    First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.

    As the retired federal agent notes:

    Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?
    It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.

    Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama’s lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to “80” instead of the current “08”. They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn’t do so.

    And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it’s his native Chicago. From an article entitled, “Post Office Registration Process”, on the Selective Service website:

    When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.
    Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.

    The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08” in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!

    * Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form

    On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B”. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80” or “90”. The retired federal agent investigated further:

    Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80” or a “90”.
    But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)–meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980”.

    Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.” And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.

    The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C”. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

    * Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature

    Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1’s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D”. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E”. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)

    * Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

    Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E”–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

    Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?

    * Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID

    The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F”. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?

    * The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

    The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:

    Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
    Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
    Sincerely,

    Janice L. Hughes/SSS

    Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?

    On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.

    * Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page

    Where is Obama’s Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?

    And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:

    The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled “G”], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled “H”]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no “heads up” that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October–around the 25th.
    Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled “I”].

    Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what’s on it?

    A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).

    Which is it?

    It’s incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.

    The documents indicate it’s one or the other.

    *** UPDATE: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:

    My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A”) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8” was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.
    **** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:

    The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.
    His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

    He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.

    He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.

    UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):

  7. Wouldn’t be cool if AP showed this much interest and enthusiasm in analyzing photos/scans provided by the Obama campaign?

    The Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered.

    Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added.

    The Associated Press (AP) news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defense photos.

    A Department of Defense spokeswoman insisted that the photo had not violated army policy.

    Ms Dunwoody, the highest ranking US female military officer, was recently promoted to become a four-star general.

    In an original photo of her, she appears to be sitting at a desk with a bookshelf behind her.

    For us, there’s a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image

    The altered photo, distributed by the army and initially sent by AP to its clients around the world, shows Gen Dunwoody against a background of the stars and stripes.

    When the digital alteration was discovered, AP immediately withdrew the photo and began an investigation.

    AP says that adjusting photos and other imagery, even for aesthetic reasons, damages the credibility of the information distributed by the military to news organisations and the public.

    “For us, there’s a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,” said Santiago Lyon, AP’s director of photography.

    Mr Lyon said AP was developing procedures to protect against further occurrences and, once those steps were in place, it would consider lifting its ban on the use of US Department of Defense photos. He said AP was also discussing the problem with the military.

  8. I don't get it

    So, obviously, I don’t get it. There’s no loophole here by which Obama has violated the Constitution. You claim that he was born in Kenya, but even if it that is true, and it’s not clear that it is, his mother was an American citizen. At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

    Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning his mom could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, so there’s really no problem here, even assuming that Obama was born in Kenya.

    What’s the big deal?

  9. Dear “I don’t get it . . .”

    You’re not a “Natural Born Citizen” by law — that would be a “naturalized citizen,” and can be a “citizen at birth,” and still NOT BE a “Natural Born Citizen.”

    The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a “term of art” — that is, it’s a term that requires you to consult with an expert to determine its meaning. In other words, it’s NOT what most people think it is. There are other “terms of art” in the Constitution, like the terms “letters of marque and reprisal,” a special category of law allowing private citizens to hunt down, attack, and collect assets of pirates and other terrorists on the open sea. That’s one that you don’t try that at home!

    Barack Obama’s official web site, “Fight The Smears,” admits that he was a British subject at the time of his birth. “FactCheck.org agrees.”

    At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information:

    “FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship”

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    [“British subject” means that you owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.]

    ” Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

    [That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British subject “at birth.”]

    There is a further difficulty with all this: Obama appears to have acted on his Kenyan citizenship as late as two years ago, in 2006. How? He allegedly donated campaign funds to his fellow Luo tribesmen, and he publicly campaigned for his cousinand presidential candidate Odinga, while he was in Kenya on a fact-finding trip as a U.S. Senator (Illinois).

    These are the ACTIONS of a citizen, and they were done only in the last few years, and many Kenyans apparently thought Obama was Kenyan — and that was not long, long ago.

    This appears to some to be concrete proof of his “divided loyalty,” and that he may not know how to deal with it.

    To sum this all up, “Natural born citizen” actually applies specifically to the qualifications to be “Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States” (CCAFUS), an office that is held by the President of the United States (POTUS). Therefore, it has as much to do with the ALLEGIANCE of the PARENTS as well the CITIZEN.

    The reason, the CCAFUS cannot have any shred of “divided loyalty” towards this nation.

    So, this is why all of this is such a BIG DEAL, and perhaps why the Supreme Court is showing a willingness to look into the matter further.

  10. Hi,

    I just want to tell you that tonight’s show is on! It will be lively and fun filled, as well as informative with some new information.

    Please post this on your Blogs, any Blogs you are associated with and send to everyone in your address book, that is still interested in making sure Obama never moves into the Whitehouse! Link, call in number and show times below!

    http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaereadiorebels

    Call In # 347-237-4870

    5:30 Pacific Time

    6:30 PM Mountain Time

    7:30 PM Central Time

    8:30 PM Eastern Time

    You can register/login and chat while you listen or just listen! Hope to see you all there!!

    MommaE

  11. According to Donofrio’s suit now pending at the Supreme Court, a “natural born” US citizen is someone who
    1) was born IN the United States and its territories AND
    2) whose parents are BOTH US citizens.

    Since McCain was born in Panama and Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of his birth, neither candidate is a “natural born” citizen according to the intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote the US Constitution even though they may be US citizens by statute. This is why, according to Donofrio, any discussion about Obama’s birth certificate and Indonesia is irrelevant to the core of the issue. The fact that his father was not a US citizen automatically means that he is NOT a “natural born” citizen of the US, even if it was proven that he was born in Hawaii.

  12. Gary von Rosenberg

    This glaring fact has been apparent from the beginning of the vetting process by the DNC
    and FEC.

    George W. Bush as President is the head of the GOP. With the resources of POTUS at his disposal he has got to know where BHO was born,even if that is not the issue, as most challengers are maintaining.

    Bush took the oath to uphold the Constitution which he has failed to do on numerous occasions but he should come forward with his knowledge in BHO’s case of face charges of concealment regarding Constitutional issues.

    The SC Justices have access to as much information as anyone if they would exercise minimal judgement in applying the law.

    The whole sordid mess disgraces the sacred honor of those who died upholding the heritage of our Republic.

  13. Click on my name, for a link to WRIF radio in Detroit, MI, they called the Kenyan Embassy day after election, Kenya Ambassador says BO born there. WTH! (20mins)

    http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

    This is good, too, 90mins

    http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html

  14. Leo Donofrio should not forget to notice that there is a second clause in the Constitution that applies specifically to the Jurisdiction of the Court, if they decide that INDEED (as it looks like in fact he was) Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British subject.

    — NOTICE THE WORD “SUBJECT” AT THE END OF THE QUOTE —

    Article III, Section 2. “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority . . . — to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; — to controversies between two or more states; –between a state and citizens of another state; — between citizens of different states; — between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. ”

    Clearly the Framers DISTINGUISHED British Subjects (and everyone else born under a Monarch) from American Citizens (who were guaranteed a Republican form of government* (namely, “citizens” with no “subjects!?)

    So, as I read the Constitution there are TWO (and not just ONE) strong arguments against Obama’s eligibility to enter on the office of President. Notice — I said TWO strong arguments!

    I think every Constitutional scholar in the nation has to be increasingly concerned about this issue, because the way I read this clause, it says that the Supreme Court MUST hear this case! I don’t thing this one they can simply dismiss it, because this clause describes the heart of their original jurisdiction.

    But, who am I? I’m just an American voter, and I certainly can’t tell them what to do.

    [*Article IV, Section 4 –“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government . . .]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s