Category Archives: District Court

John Roberts, Orly Taitz, Obama, Taitz confronts chief justice, Chief Justice Roberts speech, University of Idaho, 1984, Big Brother, Ministry of truth, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen, MSM lies, distortions

“Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called
for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay.  The
messages he had received referred to articles or news items
which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify.  For
example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of
March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa.  As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command
had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone.  It was therefore necessary to rewrite a
paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
him predict the thing that had actually happened.”

George Orwell…”1984″


Recently, the Citizen Wells blog reported on the Washington
Post rewriting an article to remove potentially damaging
content about Obama and his technology czar, Vivek Kundra.

Citizen Wells article

Dr. Orly Taitz, on Friday, March 13, 2009, confronted Chief
Justice John Roberts after a speech he gave at the University
of Idaho. Read this exerpt from an AP reporter that was
published on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website.

“At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz,
a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had

documents proving that President Obama was not born in the
United States and thus could not be president. While audience
members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures
of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.

Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with
her, she should give them to security officers. He also said
he could not discuss the issue.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., threw
out a lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship, branding the
case a waste of the court’s time.”

Read the entire article:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_id_roberts_idaho.html

Next read the Dr. Orly Taitz rendition:
“Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief
Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his
lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and
simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the
University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses
had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video
archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist
media thugs  such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly
twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.”

“It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after
sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew
to Salt Lake City, from there to Spokane, Washington, from there
I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address
Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told,
that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot
question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told
Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern
California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew
and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a
question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued.
“Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the
Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case
Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference
of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his
own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental
brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the
docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket,
completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days
before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged
citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday
I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my
case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd.
It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a
million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice
Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of
Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of
the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts
a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and
printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your
names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there
were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts
stated  “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give
them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His
Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the
documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a
full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he
found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge,
and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent
assigned to the security of Chief Justice Roberts.”

Read more here:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/14/i-did-it.aspx

Now listen to the audio:

http://www.spokesman.com/audio/2009/mar/15/roberts-question/

Now reread the reporter’s version above and consider the
following:

  • “Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.”
    No mention that she is an attorney.
  • No mention of the main object of her plea, clerk, Danny Bickle,
    criminal activity at the US Supreme Court or her conversation
    with Justice Scalia.
  • No mention that Justice Roberts said that he would review the
    documents.
  • Including the following statement to further attempt to discredit
    Dr. Taitz. “Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington,
    D.C., threw out a lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship,
    branding the case a waste of the court’s time.””
  • The reporter portrayed Orly Taitz’ encounter with Chief Justice
    Roberts in the most negative manner.

 

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Orly Taitz’ methodology she
should be respected for her gumption and her resolve. She has
experienced totalitarian regimes of the former soviet bloc and
loves this country. I have spoken with her at length and her
concern comes through in her voice.

God bless Dr. Orly Taitz.

If you are still not convinced we are experiencing a world that
closely resembles “1984”, you had better wake up.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Orly Taitz, March 14, 2009, Idaho lecture, Taitz met Roberts, University of Idaho, Roberts agrees, Read documents, US Supreme Court, Clerk, Danny Bickle, Lightfoot v Bowen, Obama not eligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen, Petition

God Bless Dr. Orly Taitz

From Dr. Orly Taitz March 14, 2009:

“I Did It. Justice Roberts Agreed to read all of my documents

Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs  such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.

 It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. “Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts stated  “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned fto the security of Chief Justice Roberts. 
I gave him 
1.Motion fo reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs. 
2. Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
3. 3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.  
4. Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me, it showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court, it contained information of court cases being created, fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion, it contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses.  It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old. It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama’s registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names. It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate. It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are  signs of forgery in Obama’s short version Certification of Live Birth, and original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status. It contained 130 current job positions for  Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas’ tax returns. All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious  positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets. These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I’ve seen previously.  For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary. Similarly Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get 1 million grant of our taxpayer money  and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife Michelle for working 20 hours a week, even though Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law licence is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).  

I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday’s dinner leftovers and ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home. I’ll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event  when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father. At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events. I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedy improve group and I would love to see him perform. My wo younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful low bass Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform. My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball. I missed time with my children, time that will never come back because a am criss crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, US attorneys, telling all of them, what is wrong with you? Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens. I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men and fought in Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a right to issue a stay and appoint Joe Biden a president pro-tempore until Obama proves his qualifications or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.”

Read more:

 http://defendourfreedoms.us/     

Hollister vs Soetoro, US District Judge James Robertson, March 5, 2009, Philip Berg, Hemenway, Obama not eligible, Col Hollister, Barry Soetoro, Judicial, Judge Robertson Memorandum, Air Force colonel, Obama not natural born citizen

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?” Marbury versus Madison

The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”

Judge Robertson’s opening statement sets the stage for revealing
his non objectivity and bias.

“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Notice the ignorance or apathy of using words like vetted. Judge
Robertson goes on to say “plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.” as if that is improper. Another example of those that
should be providing checks and balances passing the buck.
“The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer
who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued
his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama”

 

“That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a
judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them.”
“Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm,
essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s
native-born issue up for decision on a new theory:”

 

“Because it
appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented
for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the
interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are
not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for
extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal
requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules
11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys
fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.”

So now we have trying to uphold the US Constitution being referred
to as harassing. “Not warranted by existing law”?

Judge James Robertson. Which of the following apply to you?

Idiot
Incompetent
Biased
Anti American
Bought by Obama Camp

We would like to know.

The Citizen Wells blog demands for the removal of Judge James
Robertson from office. Please join us in this effort. Corrupt
or incompetent judges must be removed from office.

Complete Memorandum

Help Philip J Berg uphold the US Constitution

http://www.obamacrimes.info/index.html

Philip J Berg, Press release March 3, 2009, Obama destroying US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Berg vs. Obama, Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al, Attorney General Eric Holder, Gun ownership, HR 45, House bill

         

For Immediate Release

 

 

 

 

 

: –

03/03/2009

For Further Information Contact:

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

Berg States Obama is Destroying “our” U.S. Constitution

by “not” following Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution

and “limiting” the 2

 

 

 

 

nd Amendment re “guns”

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 03/03/09) – 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, et al

 

 

 

 

announced today that he is concerned that in addition to Obama

not

following the Constitution, Article II, Section I, by

 

 

 

 

not

being Constitutionally

qualified/eligible to be President now is “limiting” the 2

 

 

 

 

nd

Amendment through his

Attorney General Eric Holder who has quietly introduced legislation to curtail ownership

of guns by individuals throughout our United States.

Berg stated, “Wake up America! Obama is attempting to limit your gun

ownership rights by secretly introducing legislation through Attorney General Eric

Holder, said legislation to curtail gun ownership!”

 

 

 

I:\ObamaPressRlease030209

Berg continued, “ It is very important

 

 

 

 

to be aware of a new bill HR 45

introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &

Record of Sale Act of 2009. [I learned about this from the Peter Boyles

radio program.] Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it

is flying under the radar. To find out about this – go to any government

website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &

Record of Sales Act of 2009.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a

clip or ANY pistol unless:

•It is registered

•You are fingerprinted

•You supply a current Driver’s License

•You supply your Social Security #

•You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their

choosing

•Each update – change of ownership through private or public sale must

be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the

right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

•There is a child provision clause on page 16, section 305 stating a child-

access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under

18.

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your

gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up

to 5 yrs. in prison.

Listen to Peter Boyles – on KHOW 630 AM in Colorado in the morning. He

suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and

spring into action. Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the

Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and

especially the NRA.

I:\ObamaPressRlease030209

Remember – If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use

against me.

 

 

 

HR 45 only makes individuals less safe.”

Berg continued, “The Obama candidacy is 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.

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

I:\ObamaPressRlease030209

This is 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

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

obamacrimes.com
 
 

 

Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama

 

 

 

 

 

Berg filed 1

 

 

 

 

st

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 legal

President or disobey the illegal Order by a constitutionally

ineligible/unqualified “Usurper” President.

 

 

 

,

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254

 

 

 

Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09

Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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    ”

 

National Grand Jury, Stephen Pidgeon, Declaration, US Constitution, Judicial system, First Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Review Federal Government Agencies, Comply with Declaration of Independence, Constitution for USA

From the Right Side of Life:

“Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration”

“As reported late last night via DecaLogosIntl.org, Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Broe v. Reed, has officially announced that he has issued a declaration (audio at link) for a national grand jury:

Pursuant to First Amendment (The right of the people peaceably to assemble), the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people), this National Grand Jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the United States of America, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes:

  • To examine all aspects of the federal government by initiating its own investigations.
  • To serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights. and privileges established under the organic documents of the United States of America, as properly amended from time to time.
  • To conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments.

The National Grand Jury Process

The National Grand Jury, although a part of the judicial system, is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the District Courts of the United States, United States Attorneys, and Congress of the United States may act only as advisors. They cannot prevent National Grand Jury action unless that action violates the duly enacted laws as originally created in the United States.

The National Grand Jury shall review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by federal governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended.

The National Grand Jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states.

No individual grand juror, acting alone, has any power or authority. Meetings of the National Grand Jury are not open to the public. All matters discussed before the National Grand Jury and votes taken are to be kept private and confidential. The end result of inquiries into civil matters are released to the public in the form of a final report which is approved, prior to release, by the Foreperson of the National Grand Jury.

The National Grand Jury is empowered to:

  • Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
  • Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions.
  • Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
  • Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury. “

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3758

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, TN State Representative, Eric Swafford, Tennessee, Dr Orly Taitz, Eric Swafford plaintiff, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible

From Dr. Orly Taitz website, Defend our Freedoms Foundation:

 

“DEFENDOURFREEDOMS.US

First State Representative Joins Action!

Representative Eric Swafford of Tennessee has agreed to be a Plaintiff in a legal action of Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ to demand that Barack Obama proves his eligibility.

Download a copy of Representative Swafford’s consent form and bring it to your representatives today and insist they join in this action.

Representative Swafford proposed bill for Tennessee’s soveignty yesterday.

More States are expected to follow soon.”

Read more here:

http://defendourfreedoms.us

Hollister V Soetoro, Philip J Berg, DC District Court, Judge James Robertson, February 4, 2009, Colonel Hollister, Motion for response time denied, Interpleader motion denied, Motion for pro hac vice in abeyance

From Phil at The Right Side of Life:

“Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case

Submitted by Phil on Thu, Feb 5, 2009No Comment
Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending CaseThe following Order from DC District Court Judge James Robertson was issued for Hollister v. Soetoro yesterday:

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. His motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied. The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

This order does not dismiss the case; it merely tackles certain, specific issues that the Plaintiff requested. A commenter on another forum expressed the same sentiment:”

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3475

Philip J Berg, Berg vs Obama, February 2, 2009, Case referred to a Merits Panel, Internal Operating Procedures of the US 3rd Circuit Appeals Court, Federal Election Committee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, therightsideoflife.com

On February 2, 2009, Attorney Philip J. Berg’s case Berg v. Obama,
in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, was referred to a Merits Panel.
Thanks to the The Right Side of Life website for the heads up.

“Attorney Philip J. Berg, the Plaintiff in his Third Circuit Court of Appeals case Berg v. Obama, yesterday had his case referred to a Merits Panel. Below is a posting from FreeRepublic.com regarding the PACER docket:

12/09/2008 Open Document ORDER (SCIRICA, Chief Judge and AMBRO, Circuit Judges) denying Appellant’s Motion an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal. Panel No.: ECO-16. Scirica, Authoring Judge. See Order for complete text. (CH)”

“01/28/2009 Open Document CLERK ORDER referring Motion by Appellee Federal Election Commitee For Summary Affirmance to the merits panel. It is noted that Appellant filed his brief and appendix on January 20, 2009, counsel for Appellee Federal Election Committee, is directed to inform this office in writing within seven (7) days from the date of this order if they intend to file a brief or rely on the Motion for Summary Affirmance in lieu of a formal brief, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL. (CH)

02/02/2009 Open Document CLERK ORDER referring the Response of Appellant to Appellee Federal Election Committee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance to the merits panel, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL. (CH) [emphasis from posting]”

“My non-attorney take is that the Clerk has decided (based on the type of case and protocol thereof) to refer Berg’s case to a Merit Panel where, not surprisingly (!), the merits of the case will be considered prior to their being a judgment made (the document goes into more detail on how all of this could transpire: the kind of judgment, the process for making said judgment, etc.).

Does this mean anything in terms of the content of the case? I’m going to say it doesn’t, and instead say this is part of the process. However, I’m sure a number of the lawyer types that have been producing copious amounts of commentary on my blog (thanks for that!) will be happy to extrapolate more judicial theory on this issue.

-Phil”

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3371