Category Archives: Jeff Schreiber

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Obama and DNC filed response, October 31, 2008, Berg Emergency Motion, Obama requests denial

Obama and the DNC have responded to Philip J Berg’s emergency motion in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Here is a report from Jeff Schreiber:

“1. Obama and the DNC have filed a response to the Emergency Motion filed by Philip Berg in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that Berg’s Emergency Motion should be denied (1) because the motion is “effectively a new original case,” (2) because Berg “failed to comply with Rule 8(a) … requiring that he move first in the district court for any order granting an injunction while and appeal is pending,” and (3) because “there is no possibility that Berg will prevail on the merits,” citing Berg’s “patently false” claims and lack of standing.

2. It looks as though the FEC will be responding for the Respondents in the United States Supreme Court.

3. An Ohio case, filed by Mr. David Neal, was dismissed by Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach. Another news article HERE. I’ve been in contact with Mr. Neal, and will address this in more detail later.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Obama not eligible, Constitutional crisis, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Electoral College meeting, Obama not natural born citizen

The Philip J Berg lawsuit that states that Obama is not eligible to be president was dismissed by Judge Surrick last week. Howver, the lawsuit is still alive in the appeals court and will be submitted to the US Supreme Court tomorrow, October 30, 2008. Mr. Berg is trying to prevent a constitutional crisis. Jeff Schreiber has an article that explains what may happen:

 

“Obama Must Stand Up Now or Sit Down
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Fox news, US Supreme Court, Standing, New York Fox News, Obama not eligible

Philip J Berg has been interviewed by the Fox News Channel in New York. Mr. Berg discussed the interview, his lawsuit stating that Obama is not eligible to be president and the US Supreme Court with Jeff Schreiber. Here are some exerpts:

“I spoke with Philip Berg this afternoon as he sat in his office, awaiting a crew from Fox News Channel in New York. While interest in his lawsuit among those at Fox has been steadily mounting over the past few days and weeks, Berg does not know exactly in what capacity the end product of the taping will be used.

“At this point,” Berg said, “the nation just needs to know that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as president of the United States, that he has so far successfully hidden behind procedure, and that we could very well be headed toward a constitutional crisis unless this is addressed.”

And he is indeed working toward ensuring that the issue is addressed, Berg said, and has been spending the past few days preparing for his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, a move which could happen by the end of the week. This, of course, has caused him to shift other items to the proverbial back burner, including but not limited to the so-called Michelle Obama tapes purportedly possessed by editorial staff at African Press International.”

“In the unlikely event, though, that four of the nine Supreme Court Justices decide to hear the case, Berg will first have to establish that, contrary to the arguments put forth by Barack Obama and the DNC and the specifics of the decision rendered by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, he indeed has standing to sue. As I’ve pointed out in these pages before, the standing doctrine as it stands today does not bode well for Philip Berg.

To have standing, a plaintiff must satisfy a three-prong test. He or she must prove (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressibility — that they’ve sustained more than just general harm, that the harm can be traced to the conduct of the defendant, and that adjudication of the matter can provide a remedy to that harm. Berg’s biggest hurdle, so far, has been establishing injury in fact.”

“In the past, the United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must have a “personal stake” in the matter being adjudicated. This, of course, is to ensure that the matter belongs before the court in the first place. More recently, however, the Court has paid greater attention to, and awarded standing for, plaintiffs who can show enough of an injury so as to provide something along the lines of a good contest among legal rivals.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Obama born in Kenya, Berg has evidence, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama’s grandmother tape, Grandson born in Kenya, Supreme Court appeal, US Constitution upheld

From African Website 2008

From African Website 2008

Citizen Wells received information from reliable sources earlier in
2008 that stated Obama was born in Kenya and that a Kenyan birth
certificate existed for Obama. Philip J Berg has a tape Of Obama’s
paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, stating she was present at Obama’s
birth in Kenya. Here is Berg’s comment:

“While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative–and about the Democratic Party nominee for president–with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

“The tape is in the native language there,” Berg said. “I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya.””

Read more here: 
http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Judge Surrick Dismisses Berg lawsuit, Philip J Berg, Jeff Schreiber analysis

Judge Surrick dismissed the Philip J Berg lawsuit that states that Obama is Indonesian and not eligible to be president. Jeff Schreiber has provided some information on Judge Surrick’s ruling:

“Saturday, October 25, 2008
Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
 
The order came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.
Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.”

 

“So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

 

“Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Judge Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

Berg, disappointed by the decision, plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg said. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?””

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

The Constitution must be upheld.

Citizen Wells will post an article in the next 48 hours with an action plan.

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Judge Surrick dismissed, October 24, 2008 ruling, Philadelphia Daily News

The Philadelphia Daily News has stated that Judge Surrick has ruled on the Philip J Berg Lawsuit. Judge Surrick allegedly ruled on the lawsuit last night, October 24, 2008. I have it on authority that the writer of the article, Michael Hinkelman, is a “rabid Obama supporter.” Mr Hinkelman does indeed publish gross inaccuracies (lies where I come from) about the case. The informed reader will immediately spot them.

Go ahead and read the biased account from the Philadelphia Daily News, the same newspaper that did not touch this story until the case was dismissed, and then read a more factual, authoritative account here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Here are some exerpts from the article:

“Posted on Sat, Oct. 25, 2008
Judge rejects Montco lawyer’s bid to have Obama removed from ballot
By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News

hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656

A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.

He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg’s request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg’s complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.

They said that Berg’s claims were “ridiculous” and “patently false,” that Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Surrick agreed.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.”

Read more here:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews

Here are Citizen Wells’ thoughts on the ruling:

  • The US Constitution rules. Judge Surrick is bound to uphold the Constitution.
  • Thousands of voters were disenfranchised during the Democratic Primaries.
  • Thousands more voters will be disenfranchised if Obama is allowed to remain on the ballot.
  • As the election progresses, control of the election process will shift from the states to the Federal Government. The following officials will be bound to uphold the Constitution:
  1. Secretary of State of each state.
  2. Election Board Officials.
  3. Electors.
  4. Governors.
  5. Judges.
  • All of the above officials will be held accountable.
  • Taking a cue from the Democratic Party will not be a valid excuse for not upholding the Constitution and allowing Obama, an illegal alien, to remain on the ballot or be voted for by electors.

Philip J Berg will appeal Judge Surrick’s decision and take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. The Citizen Wells blog will produce an article soon to help clarify how the Constitution must be upheld. In conjunction with the American public, we will hold all responsible for the election, accountable.

Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

Philip J Berg, Update, October 22, 2008, Motion for Summary Judgement, API, African Press International, Michelle Obama tape update

Jeff Schreiber, Law student, legal writer and blog owner, has provided an update regarding Philip J Berg, the Berg lawsuit and the API, Africa Press International, Michelle Obama tape. Here are some exerpts:

“Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Motion for Summary Judgment, API Just Won’t Go Away, and Rumblings from the Court
 
As of 11:00 this morning, Philip Berg had done three radio interviews, the last of which was a half-hour spot on G. Gordon Liddy’s popular program. Later today, he will be the subject of a piece by a CBS affiliate in Anchorage, AK.

I spoke with Berg immediately after his Liddy spot, and he mentioned two things of note. First, he plans to file a motion for summary judgment with the court today. Second, he has been in contact with African Press International and, as we spoke, his staff was working with the API staff on the electronic transfer of the alleged Michelle Obama tape.

On the motion for summary judgment, I will bring details here as soon as I know anything further. Berg had hoped to file early this morning, as he did for yesterday’s motions, but certain circumstances prevented it.”

“”We are working with computer people and Chief Editor Korir over at African Press International as we speak so the audio file can be transfered over to us for distribution,” Berg said. “They say the information on there is far more extensive than just the things they reported, but before I do anything with it I want to review it in full.””

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Support Philip J Berg and uphold the US Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Obama and DNC admit all allegations, Philip J Berg, Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Obama travels to Hawaii, Failure to respond damning, October 21, 2008

Philip J Berg has called Obama and the DNC’s failure to respond to his request for admissions in a timely manner “damning” and an admission that his allegations are true. Jeff Schreiber discussed this with Mr. Berg last night. Here are some exerpts from Jeff Schreiber’s article:

“According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.

Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:

  • A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and
  • A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is “damning,” and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James’ talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today’s filings and the legal and political ramifications of the defendants’ failure to respond.”

“Given the “usually devastating” consequence of failure to respond in time to a request for admissions such as those served upon Obama and the DNC on September 15, just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?

  • Admit you were born in Kenya.
  • Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
  • Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
  • Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
  • Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
  • Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
  • Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
  • Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
  • Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
  • Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
  • Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
  • Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
  • Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
  • Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
  • Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
  • Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

Read more from Jeff Schreiber here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Support Philip J Berg in his efforts:

http://obamacrimes.com

Obama Indonesian citizen, Obama lies, Obama motion to dismiss, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Amended complaint, John Lavelle motion, Judge Surrick ruling

Barack Obama is still hiding his Indonesian citizenship behind legal
maneuvering and legalese. Today, Monday October 20, 2008, Obama filed another motion. The motion today was to dismiss Philip J Berg’s
amended complaint. Jeff Schreiber reports the following:

“Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama, DNC File Motion to Dismiss Berg’s First Amended Complaint
 
Just a few minutes ago, attorneys for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, a motion for leave for which was filed by Philip Berg on Monday, October 6.

Generally, an amended complaint cannot simply be filed by an attorney — the attorney must file a motion with the court, called a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, essentially asking that the court permit the amended complaint to be filed. That motion, the October 6 motion, is one of more than ten pending pleadings and still has not been addressed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick.

I am just now taking a look at it, but from a quick glance it appears as though Obama and the DNC are moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the same grounds for which they moved to dismiss the original complaint — that Berg lacks standing and fails to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 

On September 24, 2008, Defendants Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Senator Barack Obama filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint filed in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, together with a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”). Assuming that no leave to amend is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading,1 the First Amended Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed, on the same grounds. No amendment to the Complaint can possibly cure its fundamental defects. Not only are the allegations patently false, but plaintiff lacks standing and there is no federal cause of action for enforcement of Article II of the Constitution. Nor has plaintiff set forth, i n the Amended Complaint, any other viable federal cause of action.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Support Philip J Berg in upholding the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

API tape, African Press International, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Berg represents API, Michelle Obama tapes

Jeff Schreiber, of America’s Right blog, contacted Philip J Berg and discovered that Mr. Berg is representing API, African Press International, in regard to releasing the tape of the Michelle Obama phone call. Here is what Jeff Schreiber found out:

“I asked Philip Berg, via e-mail, whether or not he thought the API/Michelle Obama tapes were real and whether they would in fact be released within the next day or so as Chief Editor Korir maintains. His answer was simple, and firm.

“Yes,” Berg wrote.

I will say that there is more to this that I simply cannot report. Still, keep checking here for updates. In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed, and know that I am doing the same.”

“UPDATE — October 20, 10:00am:

That’s right. The news that I could not report last night is that Philip Berg, the same man who filed suit against Barack Obama in federal court, has been retained by African Press International to handle the legal ramifications of distributing the purported Michelle Obama tapes stateside.

“They came to me, and they want me to do it,” said Berg, who maintains that he has not yet heard any tape himself, but mentioned that API is saying that they “have more information than what they already released.”

Further comment, Berg said, will be reserved until after he hears the taped evidence.”

Read more from Jeff Schreiber here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Support Philip J Berg’s lawsuit:

http://obamacrimes.com