Category Archives: amended complaint

Dr Orly Taitz, Update, January 11, 2010, Captain Pamela Barnett et al V Barack Hussein Obama lawsuit, Not been heard on the merits, No discovery has been granted, Quo Warranto

Just in a few minutes ago from Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney in Captain Pamela Barnett, et al V Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and    President of the Senate.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078 
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
 
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,                           §
                        Plaintiffs,                                     §
                                                                            §
              v.                                                           §        Civil Action:
                                                                            §
Barack Hussein Obama,                                     §        SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama,                                        §         REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,      §        MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,             §        MOTION FOR LEAVE OF  
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and                  §        COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate,                                      §        WARRANTO
Defendants.                                                         §
 
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
 
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President  Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”.  The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options:  A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of  Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
 
     The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received.  Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.       
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 
I.   What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? – Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
 
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
 
III.          Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
 
IV.          Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
 
V.           Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
 
VI.          Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
 
VII.        Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
 
VIII.       Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
 
IX.          Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
 
X.           To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
 
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
 
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America  against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”.  The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama  has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United  States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
 
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father   as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen. 
 
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility  never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
 
          The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
 
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not  his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president. 
 
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another.  The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
 
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought  against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
 
 
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
:__________________________________
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
 for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.:  949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
 
 
 
PROOF OF SERVICE
 
     I, the undersigned Orly Taitz,  hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
 
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
 AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
 
/s/Orly Taitz
 
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Advertisements

Philip J Berg, Update, September 18, 2009, Interview, MommaE blog radio, Status of 3 cases, Berg lawsuits, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Philip J Berg, who filed the first lawsuit in August 2008, claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, will be interviewed on MommaE blog radio tonight, September 18, 2009 at 8:30 PM ET. Philip Berg will provide updates on his 3 cases. Attorney Berg also warned in 2008 that if we did not resolve this eligibilty issue before the general election, that we would have a constitutional crisis. That is exactly what has happened.

“Hi,
 
I just want to let you know that tonight’s guest will be Attorney Phil Berg.  Phil will be giving us updates on the status of his 3 cases that are alive and well, plus telling us the true information about a Subpoena that surfaced a few days ago with his name on it.. It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
 
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all there!  Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
5:30 PM Pacific Time
 
6:30 PM Mountain Time
 
7:30 PM Central Time
 
8:30 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all.  Please join us in the Chat room!
  
MommaE”

Philip J Berg, Press release, February 24, 2009, Michael savage, Radio interview, Berg vs Obama, 2 cases, 1 under seal, Hollister vs. Soetoro aka Obama, Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional qualifications, eligibility, President of the United States

Philip J Berg Press release dated February 24, 2009:

 

02/24/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg on Michael Savage Nation (Contact information and PDF at end)(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/24/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today that he will be on Michael Savage Nation tonight at 6:30 p.m. E.S.T.Berg stated, “I am thrilled to be on Savage Nation as Michael Savage has a widespread audience [10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week – on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, or hundreds of other stations nationwide] and Michael asks the tough questions. The last time I appeared our dialogue regarding Obama was so great that I turned out to be the longest guest ever, being on for 1 ½ hours.

My appearance will help in our efforts to spread the word as the major media continues to refuse to cover this story – the most significant story in the history of our country; the biggest “HOAX” perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.”

Berg continued, “I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) ‘Birth Certificate;’ that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States.”

Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”

The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama’s lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.

Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case – Quo Warranto [challenge person in office – that does not meet the qualifications].

As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue – having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention

Status of Cases:

Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)
This is the case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of “standing” by Philip J. Berg
This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court – where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
Berg filed Motion to Unseal – decision pending.

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09 after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss
Berg also filed Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama – must he obey an Order by a legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified “Usurper” President.

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire           

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
                (6…        
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell                 (6…        

philjberg@obamacrimes.com   

First hour interview between Berg and Savage
begins just after 17 minutes in.

First hour interview 

Second hour with additional comments from
Senator Shelby of Alabama.
 

 

 

 

Philip J Berg, Press Release, February 13, 2009, Expose Obama, Obama not qualified, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, Status of cases, Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, US District Court, Hollister vs. Soetoro, Spread the word

Press release from Philip J Berg, dated February 13, 2009:

“02/13/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg Fighting On – 3 Pending Lawsuits to
Expose Obama for “not” being Constitutionally “qualified/eligible” to be President
and Berg requests help to spread the word as the major media refuses

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/13/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today the request to his supporters to spread the word as the major media continues to refuse to cover this story – the most significant story in the history of our country; the biggest “HOAX” perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.
Berg’s request: “I hereby request all of obamacrimes.com supporters to (1) go to your computers; (2) send a message to everyone on ‘your address’ book to go to obamacrimes.com and read it; (3) ask everyone on ‘their address’ book to read and send on to everyone on their address book; and (4) if they can, make a contribution to obamacrimes.com [on our web site to donate online or mail in]. I am requesting donations of asking four [4] friends to contribute $15.00 each or donate $60.00 themselves as this is the seventh [7th] month that we are pursuing this effort to expose Obama’s ‘HOAX’ and we are preparing to proceed with discovery [interrogatories, request for production of documents, subpoenaing of documents, depositions of Obama & Howard Dean, etc.].

I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) ‘Birth Certificate;’ that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States.”

Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”

Status of Cases:

Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Waiting for Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and the other Defendants (Appellees)

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09
after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

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        

philjberg@obamacrimes.com    ”

 

Philip J Berg, January 12, 2009, US Supreme Court denies Writ of Certiori, Obama not eligible, Anderson Amicus Curiae granted, Jeff Schreiber explanation, Americasright.com, Philip Berg response, Constitutional crisis

** See Update Below **

The US Supreme Court has denied Philip J Berg’s Writ of Certiori
that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. The
court did, however, grant the Anderson Amicus Curiae brief associated
with Berg’s lawsuit. Jeff Schreiber of Americas Right provides the
following information.

“A motion filed by a third party seeking permission to file a amicus
curiae–“friend of the court”–brief was granted, but with certiorari
denied in Berg’s case, it is unclear whether granting the amicus curiae
motion is anything more than a formality.

Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee,
filed on August 21, 2008 and first reported here at America’s Right,
questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1 of the
United States Constitution–which requires in part that the president be a
“natural born Citizen” of the United States–and was previously dismissed
by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from District Court in Philadelphia. While
the Supreme Court’s denial of Berg’s petition for certiorari today was not
accompanied by explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least
six Justices agreed with Surrick’s determination that Berg lacked standing
to sue.

“Of course, I cannot help but be disappointed because the Supreme Court
Justices are the ultimate protectors of our Constitution, and in this case
they really let us down,” Berg said. “They let America down. They let all of
us down. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against this country.
Forget politics for a minute and just think of the Constitution — next week,
we’ll be swearing in a president without even knowing for sure whether or not
he’s qualified constitutionally to serve in that office. There are so many
unanswered questions about Barack Obama and, today, the Court just told us
that we’re not even permitted to ask.””

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

** UPDATE **

I received the following comment that I believe to be factual:

“URGENT From Lisa regarding Today’s SCOTUS ruling
written by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009

Here is a very brief explanation of what today’s ruling means to us…

What today’s ruling means is that WE’RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama – in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn’t resolved.
If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won’t be sworn in. We jsut don’t know what might happen next.

In the meantime, Bill Anderson’s motion for “permission” to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.

WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!

Phil is putting together a press release to be posted today on obamacrimes.com.”

Philip J Berg questions and answers, Jeff Schreiber interview, Berg answers, January 5, 2009, Interpleader explained, Air Force colonel Hollister, Obama ineligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Constitutional crisis, US Supreme Court

Whether you agree or not with everything that Philip J Berg believes,
the man deserves a lot of credit for his efforts to hold Barack
Obama accountable in regard to presidential eligibility. Likewise,
Jeff Schreiber, a law student,legal writer and blog owner has done
a great job of covering the Philip J Berg lawsuits. Here are some
exerpts from questions Jeff Schreiber asked of Mr. Berg:
Jeff Schreiber reports:
Questions and answers with Philip J Berg.

“As an aside, despite the way he is painted by supporters and detractors alike,
and despite his views on the attacks of September 11, 2001–which I absolutely
abhor and he knows it–I’ve always found Berg to be rational and to be gracious.
I spoke with him this weekend, and this is the result.”

“You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is
because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama.
Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. We sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because
we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he
has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself
in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with
the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in
Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since.

Take for example if I adopt someone from Kenya, if I adopt a girl from Kenya,
she would take my last name, Berg. And, if anything changed in the future, if
she wanted to use another name for any reason, she would have to legally change
that name.”
“Tell me about Col. Hollister.

Col. Hollister, the plaintiff, is a retired Air Force colonel, he’s about 52
years old or so, and served this country from 1978 to 1998 before being honorably
discharged. During that time, when he served this country, he swore to protect
America against all enemies foreign and domestic – which is interesting because,
right now, we may have a domestic crisis going on.

Hollister contacted us. He’s not the only military man we’ve had contact us in
hopes to help. We’ve had quite a few who, over the past few months, called to offer
their support. He called us because he is perplexed. Here he is, on the Individual
Ready Reserve—meaning that he is able, that he is subject to Presidential recall
now and for the rest of his life—and he sees what’s going on across the world and
he’s perplexed as to whether he could, if called up to serve again, follow orders
from a Commander in Chief who may or may not be constitutionally eligible for that
position. If Obama is sworn in on January 20th, if he takes that Oath of Office,
he is usurping the powers of the president of the United States. And, when the
truth comes out, and it will, it will mean that all of Obama’s laws and orders will
be deemed invalid and will come back.

So Col. Hollister is perplexed. If he is called up, he has a duty to obey lawful
orders from the Commander in Chief and on down the chain of command. And he would
also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. He took an Oath of Enlistment to fight
for and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but he’s
confused because he doesn’t know who these duties will be owed to if Obama is sworn
in. Is he qualified to be Commander in Chief? What if he was born in Kenya? What if
he is an illegal alien?”

“Speaking of timing, what do you think is the significance of January 9th? Is it
significant? Why do you think you were the first case into the Supreme Court, but
the last case out?

I don’t want to say anything to blow it, you know, but I think we’ve got a great shot.
They could have thrown us out weeks ago. January 9th could very well be a significant
day in all of this, because Obama will actually be president elect instead of
designate.

On November 4th, he just got the popular votes. We tried to show that he shouldn’t
have been on the ballot so we could avoid a constitutional crisis, but that obviously
didn’t work. On December 15th, he just got the electoral votes. We pushed to stop
that vote but were obviously unsuccessful. Those votes will be counted on Thursday,
and barring anything drastic like a congressman standing up to protect, he will
finally be President-Elect Barack Obama.”
“Let’s say for a moment that it works. Obama is deemed ineligible. What next for the
country? What next for you?

I don’t know. It depends upon when Barack Obama is declared ineligible. If it happens
before Thursday, it means one thing. If it happens after Thursday but before January
20th, it means another thing. If it happens after January 20th, it appears that Biden
would be president, but who knows? After all, he was selected by someone who shouldn’t
have been running for president and selecting vice presidents in the first place.

I just hope and pray, every night, for calm and peace in this country, and if Obama is
found to be unqualified, I would urge political and cultural leaders to come forth with
something like a national broadcast and appeal for peace. This was Barack Obama’s doing,
this was caused by one man, and nobody else. In fact, Barack Obama himself come out and
say “I’m proud to have made history on November 4th, in getting more votes than anybody
else, but because of some issues with my past, I have no choice but to step down.” And
he should appeal for peace and calm.”

Read the rest of this great article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

wethepeoplefoundation.org, We The People Foundation, Press Conference, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, Washington DC, Robert Schulz, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, Obama not eligible lawsuits, US Supreme Court answer, Chicago Tribune letter to Obama

The We The People Foundation will hold a Press Conference on Monday, December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Robert Schulz of the We The People Foundation will discuss the letter to Obama published in the Chicago Tribune and then the plaintiffs in the major lawsuits before the US Supreme Court will speak.

The following is from a Wall Street Journal, Market Watch article dated December 4, 2008:

“On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.”

Read more here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D

The following is from the We The People Foundation site:

“Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.

Chicago is Mr. Obama’s hometown. His transition team is operating out of the Kluczynski Federal Building in downtown Chicago. He is known to be a regular reader of the Tribune, Chicago’s principal newspaper, with a daily circulation of over a half-million readers. 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8. 

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama. 

As a formal “Notice of a Constitutional Violation,” the Petition naturally includes the People’s inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

For the D.C. press conference the WTP Foundation has reserved the Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club from 1-4 pm on Monday, December 8, 2008. We are hopeful that C-SPAN may cover what could be a pivotal, historic event.”

Read more here:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm

I spoke to Robert Schulz several weeks ago and he stated that it was only after Obama began avoiding requests for proof of his eligibility and using legal wrangling to escape confrontation that he began to believe there was a serious problem with Barack Obama.