Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
From Philip J Berg.
For Immediate Release: – 08/08/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(800) 993-PHIL 
Fax (610) 834-7659
Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
in the Case of
Berg as Relator vs. Obama
* * *
No Surprise that Attorney General Holder
Will “not” Prosecute “blacks” in Voting Rights Cases
as he has Refused to Prosecute Obama
in this False Claims Act Case
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/08/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States. The Policy of United States Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute “blacks” in voting rights cases should be no surprise as A.G. Holder has refused to prosecute Barack Hussein Obama in the False Claims Act [Qui Tam] case of Berg as Relator vs. Obama.
Berg said, “The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his offices and staff, including the Department of Justice have a clear Conflict-of-Interest in any type of prosecution against Obama.”
“This type case is usually utilized in Medicaid and Medicare cases where fraud is alleged. In the case against Obama, I set forth that Obama is not “natural born” or “naturalized” but an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as a United States Senator from Illinois was fraud and the salary and benefits Obama received must be returned to the United States Treasury, an amount in excess of One [$1] Million Dollars. I base my claim on the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s legal name became “Barry Soetoro.” At age ten  when he returned to Hawaii, I allege that he did not go through U.S. Immigration on a U.S. Passport, but did so on his Indonesia Passport, therefore, an “illegal alien.” Also, I allege that “Barry Soetoro” [former Barrack Hussein Obama] has never legally changed his name and therefore, he has committed ongoing fraud by using Barrack Hussein Obama.
“The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; was senior legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign; and served as one of three  members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still exists with my, Berg’s, False Claim or Qui Tam Case.”
Berg’s False Claims Act [Qui Tam] Case was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia at the end of 2008. The U.S. District Court Dismissed the Qui Tam Action and failed to respond to the issue of the Conflict-of- Interest. Berg Appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who on June 30, 2010, upheld the District Court’s ruling and in so doing stated that Berg failed to demonstrate that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have a Conflict-of-Interest. This simply is not the case.
Government employees are required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, which clearly spell out the issue of Conflict-of-Interest. Just to name a few, Eric Holder’s placement with Obama through Obama’s campaign are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder reports directly to Obama, the violator, spells out a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, is a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder was the Senior Legal Advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign violates the Code of Federal Regulations under Conflict-of-Interests; and the fact Eric Holder served as one of three  members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee are all clear Conflict-of-Interests in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.
For this reason, Berg has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. When a case is brought to the United States Appellate Court, the matter or a three-Judge panel hears matters complained of. When you request a rehearing En Banc, you are asking for the majority of active Circuit Judges to rehear the case En Banc.
Many Appellate Courts, who have a large number of Judges and a large caseload, will divide the Cases (Appeals) into divisions or panels for each case. For example, three  judge panels usually hear United States Appeals Court cases. There are times however, at the request of the panel, or one of the litigants, the case is later reheard by the full court, or, En Banc. En Banc is a French word that means “the full Court”. When a Petition for a Rehearing En Banc is filed, the party filing the Petition is asking for the Full Court to rehear the matter complained of on Appeal.
Berg said, “If a Conflict-of-Interest does not exist in this case, Berg as Relator vs. Obama, then the words ‘Conflict-of-Interest’ must be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and from all legal and other dictionaries.”
Berg concluded, “If we are denied a rehearing En Banc, then I will take this Case to the U.S. Supreme Court as the issues presented are far too important not to address.”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to: