Category Archives: PHILIP J. BERG

Philip Berg update, May 17, 2009, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Michelle Obama, Hoax, Constitutional crisis, Obama ineligible, illegal alien, Michelle Obama disbarred

From Philip J Berg, may 17, 2009:

“For Immediate Release: – 05/17/2009
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 the Obama’s give Commencement Addresses but
fail to be honest with the graduates about who they really are.
Barack Obama is really Barry Soetoro, an illegal alien, an
Usurper who is Constitutionally “ineligible” to be President
of the United States.
Michelle Obama is a “disbarred” attorney in Illinois – how
and why ?
Why does the public not know the backgrounds of the
phonies in the White House ?
Obama is the biggest “HOAX” against the United States in
over 230 years !
Time to e-mail !
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 05/17/2009) – 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 has three [3] cases that are still pending
in the Federal Court system, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al, announced today that he is asking
everyone to e-mail the messages below to DEMAND THE OBAMA’S to
release the “truth” about their backgrounds.
The purpose of our President is to protect our Country, the U.S.A.
and “We The People”, not to leave us with doubts and fears. If “We The
People” and our Country, the United States of America, are important to
Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama, he would do everything in his
power to put all doubts and fears to rest. It is a very easy solution; all he
has to do is provide his Constitutional eligibility credentials and records.
Yes, transparency and openness as promised by Obama !
Our country is in a financial crisis, BUT WORSE, a “Constitutional
Crisis” as Obama is not “Constitutionally eligible/qualified” to be
President.
Send one [1] e-mail to the following: The White House, Vice
President Biden – http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/; Nancy Pelosi –
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov; ASSOCIATED PRESS – traum@ap.org; New York
Times – letters@nytimes.com, oped@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com,
executive-editor@nytimes.com, managing-editor@nytimes.com, news-tips@nytimes.com,
national@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com; Washington Post – letters@washpost.com,
national@washpost.com, sundaysource@washpost.com; Washington Times –
oped@washingtontimes.com, yourletters@washingtontimes.com; Los Angeles Times –
Tim.Garrison@latimes.com, Michael.Owen@latimes.com, Tenny.Tatusian@latimes.com,
David.Johnson@latimes.com, Marc.Olson@latimes.com, Michael.Muskal@latimes.com,
Roger.Smith@latimes.com, Ashley.Dunn@latimes.com, Steve.Padilla@latimes.com,
Mark.Barabak@latimes.com, Connie.Stewart@latimes.com, Robin.Abcarian@latimes.com,
Bob.Drogin@latimes.com; The Chicago Tribune – tips@tribune.com, bdold@tribune.com,
ctc-editor@tribune.com, JHirt@tribune.com, JWinnecke@tribune.com, KAlleynemorris@tribune.com,
Rxbecker@tribune.com, SBenzkofer@tribune.com; The Sacramento Bee – oped@sacbee.com,
letters@sacbee.com: ATLANTA JOURNAL – CONSTIUTION – bsteiden@ajc.com,
cwarmbold@ajc.com, cynthia@ajc.com, gmathis@ajc.com, hklibanoff@ajc.com, hpost@ajc.com,
jmallory@ajc.com, jbookman@ajc.com, jdwallace@ajc.com, letters@ajc.com, insideajc@ajc.com,
pgast@ajc.com, rnarayanan@ajc.com, rhenry@ajc.com; BOSTON GLOBE –
goodman@globe.com, kcooper@globe.com, johnson@globe.com, letter@globe.com,
brelis@globe.com, oliphant@globe.com; BUSINESS WEEK – lettersbwol@businessweek.com,
richard_dunham@businessweek.com; ABC – netaudr@abc.com, nightline@abcnews.com,
2020@abc.com; CBS – evening@cbsnews.com, earlyshow@cbs.com, 60minutes@cbsnews.com,
48hours@cbsnews.com, ftn@cbsnews.com; NBC – today@nbc.com; FOX News –
comments@foxnews.com, Special@foxnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, Oreilly@foxnews.com,
Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, Ontherecord@foxnews.com; CNN and CNN
Headline News – http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?6,
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/; aaron.brown@turner.com, andrea.koppel@turner.com,
bill.schneider@turner.com, bruce.morton@turner.com, candy.crowley@turner.com; MSNBC,
dateline@nbc.com, hardball@msnbc.com, joe@msnbc.com, nightly@nbc.com; CNBC –
info@cnbc.com; PBS – newshour@pbs.org; NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO –
ombudsman@npr.org; THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW – ElRushbo@eibnet.com;
SEAN HANNITY SHOW – phil.boyce@citcomm.com;
“To Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro and Michelle
Obama: As your administration is to be “open and transparent,” why will
you not divulge your backgrounds? I know why.
As both of you are addressing graduates of college, you are being
dishonest to all of them as you fail to tell them about your backgrounds.
What a disgrace !
Because both of you are putting on the biggest “HOAX” in our
country in over 230 years.
Barack or rather Barry [Soetoro], you know you are an illegal alien,
not only “Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified” to be President, but also
it was illegal for you to have served as a United States Senator from
Illinois for 3 ½ years.
Michelle, just be honest ! You are being honored as First Lady
without explaining to the citizens of our country that you were “disbarred”
from being an attorney in 1993 – why ? The public has a right to know.
Michelle and Obama, you both know that you are putting forth this
great “HOAX,” that is so dangerous to all of us, the people of this great
nation.
Reveal yourselves and Obama resign, as President “now” as
everything you do is void or voidable. Why are you putting our nation
through this turmoil ?
Thank you,
Respectfully,
__________________________ [your name]”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com”

 

Read more:

 

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

Philip Berg, Orly Taitz, Lisa Liberi, Lisa Ostella, accusations, controversy

From an email from MommaE of blog radio:

“Hi CitizenWells,
 
Below is a post that was in defense of Phil Berg’s Assistant Lisa Liberi!  THANK GOD some one had the foresight to go and research and post it.  Please feel free to post this on any and all Blogs or Web Sites you have or connected to.  Maybe this will stop some of the craziness that Phil and Lisa are going through since Orly’s attack.
 
MommaE”

“Comment: It never fails to amaze me how people will run with the slightest bit of uncorroborated information as if it were the God’s honest truth. Take for example the Lisa Liberi/Ostella issue. I looked Ms. Liberi up in the San Bernardino Court records. Unless this woman is a shape shifter, there is no way the California Liberi and the Pennsylvania Liberi are the same woman.

Yes, there is a Lisa Liberi in California who is originally from New Mexico and has a history of felony fraud. However, she resides in California, has been here for over a decade, and the only reason she shows up as a resident of New Mexico is because she is still on probation in that state. This is a matter of public record and is available (free) online. She was in custody in the State of California at the same time that the Pennsylvania Liberi was working as Berg’s assistant.

Now, I’ve heard of liberal “work release” programs, but the State of California did not allow an incarcerated felon to skip off to go work for Phil Berg.

The fact that two people have the same name does not offer any proof that they are the same person. It’s a huge jump in logic, with no verifiable documentation, that is being stated by some as FACT.

How these very same people have managed to fabricate a connection between Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella is even more mind boggling. The only substantiated connection is that these two women share the same first name.”

Obama birth certificate forgery, Obama corruption, Vivek Kundra, Yusuf Acar, forged documents, John Brennan, Passport security breach, Long form birth certificate forgery

Obama thugs forging long form birth certificate?

“Don’t know about 9/11 conspiracy, but do know from DC source that an Administration team is working on perfecting a forgery of the long-form birth certificate. They plan on presenting it in a a month or so. The source is FBI agent who has drinking buddy from University of Illinois now in the Administration. Its second hand, but the source is supposed to be solid.

They have already prepared the forgery with special paper and ink. The document was printed on a fully functional 1960 Heidelberger printing press located at a print museum in Toronto. Access was arranged by a trustee of the museum who is connected to a large Canadian banking/investment firm with major US interests.”

Read more

Is the above true? I have no confirmation.

Is it plausible?

Based on everything we know about Obama, et al,

Absolutely!

Consider the following (ignoring the COLB controversy).

Obama, Kundra, Yusuf Acar and forged documents
“Yesterday, the Citizen Wells blog presented a second article on
the arrest of 2 individuals in the Washington DC office
that was headed by Obama’s technology czar, Vivek Kundra, as
recently as a few days ago. This article came from a Washington
Post article dated March 13, 2009. Last night Citizen Wells
was notified that the Washington Post article had been changed.

After some investigating, it was discovered that the whole
nature of the article had been changed. Consider the
following:”
“Vivek Kundra, who was tapped as the White House technology czar
March 5, oversaw technology projects and budgets for 86 D.C.
government agencies as head of the District’s Office of the Chief
Technology Officer.”

“Yusuf Acar, 40, who has worked in the technology office since
2004, was charged with bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and
conflict of interest.”

“FBI agents carted away boxes and envelopes from the Office of
the Chief Technology Officer throughout the day.”

“Acar also told the informant that he could use computers to
create fake D.C. birth certificates, Hibarger said.”

“The scam began unraveling in March last year”

Acar forged birth certificates and the Washington Post changed their article

“A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be “monetary sanctions”  against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn’t qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen in that post.”

Read more

“Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.”

“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.”

Read more

From Philip Berg’s lawsuit

“53. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.”

Read more

March 21, 2008 Obama’s passport information breached

Lyle J. Rapacki, PHD, FBI InfraGard, March 16, 2009, White Paper Discussion, Dr. Orly Taitz, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, Barack Obama not eligible, US Attorney General, US Army Officer, constitutional crisis, civil unrest

From Dr. Orly Taitz:

“NOTE from Defend Our Freedoms Foundation Staff.

The below report states: “if Mr Obama fights unsealing his documentation…there will be civil unrest unleashed on the streets”

InfraGrad has a Public Private Partnership with the FBI.  The PPP programs has been leveraged heavily from local to

international levels to render entities back into Panopolies. The term panopoly was coined by Joseph Borkin, chief

economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice circa 1943, during his investigations of

I.G. Farben because the aggregation of businesses were much larger than a monopoly or cartel.

 

 

LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.

Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment

Vice President of Protective Services

_______

 

Diplomate:                                                                                                                        Reply:

American Academy of Forensic Counselors                                                                              Southwest Risk Advisors, Inc.

American Psychotherapy Association                                                                                        Post Office Box 1595

                                                                                                                                                          Chandler, Arizona  85244

Licensed Investigator                                                                                                                    Telecommunications:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent                                                                              1-866-481-7712 – office

Information Warfare Analyst                                                                                                       480-440-5930 – cell

ASIS – Phoenix Chapter Membership Chair                                                                             LRapacki1@Hotmail.com                                                                       

FBI InfraGard  Arizona                                                                                                               

 

 

Memorandum:  WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

 

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

NOT CLASSIFIEDPUBLIC DISSEMINATION

 

March the 16th, 2009

 

Statement of Purpose:

The content of this White Paper is deliberately intended to stimulate thought and discussion.  Informational analysis comprising global security, national security of the United States of America, socio-political-economic forces as a dimension to national security, culture, freedom in human rights, defense and the rule of law are considered within the framework of this treatise.

 

Overview:

Beginning as campaign rhetoric, the question of Barak Obama’s legal status as a citizen of the United States of America qualified to serve as President, is moving toward a crescendo that might be heard formally by the United States Supreme Court.  Downplayed by many, including U.S. Senators on the Republican side and even Senators serving on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as late as Friday of last week, a significant meeting occurred last Thursday, March 12th in Idaho.  The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was speaking before a large audience (800 in attendance, including the President of the Idaho State Bar Association) on the character of Abraham Lincoln, when attorney Orly Taitz of Mission Viejo, California came to the microphone and asked the Chief Justice if he would personally review a legal brief and a complaint signed by over 325,000 American citizens as to the Constitutionality of Barak Obama’s swearing-in as President.  Chief Justice Roberts personally agreed to review the legal brief and the complaint saying such in front of the audience. 

_______

 

Motions to be heard on this critical Constitutional matter have been dismissed already, or not even accepted by courts in many states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Washington, Texas, North Carolina to name a few. But the issue will not go away; it is morphing now to include active members of the Armed Forces serving in “Hot Zones” or theatres of combat.  The legal motion handed

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page two

_______

 

to the Chief Justice warns: “If MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in the Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office.”      

 

Just prior to this meeting, attorney Taitz sent Certified Correspondence on February 27th to the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, Congressional and Senatorial Judiciary Committee, et.al. with the stated purpose “demand for investigation and immediate action in regards suspected crimes” identified as, but not limited to: impersonation of a military officer, libel, defamation of character, harassment, interference with judicial proceedings, breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States, forgery, using cyberspace for voter fraud.  Military officers from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces have joined in this action as Plaintiffs.  Among the petitioners are:  Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer and Selected Reservist Navy Commander Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, U.S. Army now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tenn. State Rep. Frank Nicely and others.

 

One of the “and others” is Harry Riley, a veteran who spent a significant time serving in the Pentagon.  This former officer said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow “the trashing” of their Constitution.  Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution.  The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis.  How can an individual become the Commander-in-Chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?”

 

The complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney General (now in the hands of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) requests relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court.”  This legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president.  This is the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.  This legal right established in British common law 800 years ago and was recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. 

 

The complaint further states: “As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009.  Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications.  Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed to qualify per U.S. Constitution; articles II and I; amendment XX paragraph 3.”    

_______

 

What follows is the Summary of the complaint filed by Orly Taitz, attorney in Mission Viejo, California.  As you can imagine, the complaint is thorough and long.  I have replicated sufficient

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

passages so not to diminish the nature, spirit, scope or details of the complaint but conscious of time to read and length, I compiled the salient points in this complaint to save you from reading the 78 page document.  I will further attest that Exhibits and articles of proof were also attached to the documents I reviewed.  I will further attest the investigator working this case for attorney Taitz is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of California for the past twenty-five years, and prior to this, served twenty years as a Detective at New Scotland Yard.  I will further attest that I have reviewed documents containing additional names not previously mentioned. Some of the names are active military and others are retired at Lt. Col. and above rank.

 

Should it be discovered Mr. Obama is ineligible, a constitutional crisis would ensue attempting to determine which of his executive branch orders should be valid.  If, however, this case continues and Mr. Obama fights revealing his documentation, there are growing concerns of civil unrest, or worse, being unleashed in the streets of our nation.  The economic crisis coupled with this type of a constitutional crisis could prove to be a “flashpoint” that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security.

_______

 

Summary of the Complaint submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.:

“Recently an active U.S. Army Officer, who is risking his life in defending our country in Iraq, joined my (attorney Taitz) legal action aimed at unsealing Barack Hussein Obama’s, aka Barry Soetoro’s, (Obama/Soetoro) legal status and eligibility/legitimacy for presidency of the U.S.  The president needs to be a ‘natural born citizen – one who is born in the country to parents (plural, both) who are citizens of this country.

 

This definition was recently unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate in Senate resolution 511, presented by Senator Leahy in April 2008, as Senator McCain sought his legitimacy for the presidency to be verified, and Mr. McCain therefore presented his long version original birth certificate.

 

Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen; he was a citizen of Kenya here in the U.S. on a student visa, which by itself made Obama/Soetoro ineligible for presidency, regardless of whether he was born in this country or Kenya, or whether he later lost his U.S. citizenship while immigrating to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship (by being adopted and naturalized), and later reaffirming his Indonesian citizenship while traveling on a Indonesian passport as an adult, and also most likely obtaining taxpayer funded financial aid as a Foreign Exchange student from Indonesia (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and any U.S. citizenship would therefore have to be relinquished).  Additionally, Obama/Soetoro’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, and the Ambassador from Kenya,

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

Peter Ogego, made statements that he was born in Kenya, and there is no record of him being born in any hospital in Hawaii.  HI Statute #338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth (COLB), and those can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only.

 

Additionally, Forensic Document expert Sandra Line has issued an affidavit that Obama’s place of birth cannot be ascertained without reviewing the original birth certificate.  Dr. Chiymoi Fukimo, director of Health Department for the State of Hawaii, issued a statement that Obama has a birth certificate on file, but intentionally refused to provide clarification, whether it is a birth certificate for a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, whether it was prepared based on hospital records or statement of one relative only, or whether it is an amended birth certificate, created upon Obama/Soetoro’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro, his Indonesian stepfather, and showing him a citizen of Indonesia. 

 

There are forensic questions raised about the short version Certification of Life Birth posted by Obama/Soetoro on his web site; lacking corroborating evidence such as name of the hospital, name of the doctor, three signatures and a seal on the front of the document.

 

Similarly, Obama/Soetoro supporters used Cyber space previously, in order to misinform and defraud American citizens and commit voter fraud.  On November 3rd, a day before the National elections, when numerous voters questioned Obama/Soetoro’s Natural Born status and his refusal to provide his long version birth certificate, an article appeared on the Internet stating that a Virginia Judge reviewed Obama/Soetoro’s original birth certificate and found it to be valid, Obama/Soetoro to be a Natural Born citizen, and all legal actions to be frivolous (Exhibit).  This whole case was manufactured, and Cyber space was used, to defraud American citizens….

 

I am also requesting an investigation into the financial dealings of Barack and Michele Obama.  Please see attached list of over 100 addresses for Barack Obama and a 100 business addresses for Michele Obama.  These are addresses obtained from a private investigator and an intelligence service.  Obama/Soetoro’s addresses are connected to numerous different social security numbers.  None of the 130 positions listed for Michelle and Barry or Barack H. Obama were listed on their disclosed tax returns.  There has to be a corresponding search for each and every employer that is listed.  If those are salaried positions then, there is massive tax fraud.  And if those were campaign contributions over the allowed limits then, there is massive campaign contributions fraud, especially in light of over $300 million in

 

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page four

_______

 

contributions that are unaccounted for.  Which is it?  What social security numbers were used? 

 

As you stated in your speech on Martin Luther King Day, Americans should not be ‘cowards’, particularly when matters of race are concerned.  I was not a coward and prepared this large dossier, so I hope you will not be a coward and instead order an expeditious completion of this investigation and its subsequent prosecution.”

 

Conclusion:

Accompanying this complaint is a petition calling for an appointment of a special prosecutor similar to the one appointed during Watergate.  The fact that Obama has not ordered Hawaiian officials to release the document leaves doubt as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists.  Similar concerns exist in Mr. Obama’s refusal to release student records from Occidental College in the early 80’s where he may have been a student under the name of Barry Soetero, attending the college on aid for foreign students.

 

The action handed to the Chief Justice is on behalf 120 military officers, many of high rank, and 9 state representatives.  Purportedly the room was stunned and silent as attorney Taitz and Chief Justice Roberts engaged in an extremely brief exchange regarding these charges which led to the oral promise made by the Chief Justice to review them.    

 

 

 

( END OF REPORT )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent

Information Warfare Analyst

FBI InfraGardArizona

 

0100 Hrs. m.s.t.”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.org

 

            

Chief Justice John Roberts, Orly Taitz, Dr Taitz confronts Justice Roberts, March 21, 2009, YouTube video, University of Idaho, Bellwood lecture, Obama not eligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen

Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.

Read more from Dr. Orly Taitz:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Orly Taitz interview, March 17, 2009, Rollye James interview, Obama’s Identity, Obama’s Money, Scotus Tampering, US Supreme Court, YouTube videos

Rollye James interview of Dr. Orly Taitz
March 17, 2009

Orly Taitz intro

Obama’s Identity

Obama’s Money

Scotus Tampering I

Scotus Tampering II

Dr. Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections, Update March 20, 2009, Lt Col Donald Sullivan, Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC, US Constitution, First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, US Military

I just received this update from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan:

“Personal Transcript of Hearing:  Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections; Case #08-CVS-021393

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

On March 16, 2009, the calendar was called by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, presiding, in Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC.  My case was #23 on the calendar and required the hearing of three separate “motions”:  My demand for class action certification; my demand for leave to amend; and the State’s motion to dismiss.  When he got to #23, the judge said he would pass over this item until he had completed calling the calendar.  (Odd, this.  It was apparent there had been discussion of my case prior to the hearing.  I am not at all sure these discussions did not include the defendant State.) Upon completion of calling the calendar, and after dividing the calendar between himself and another superior court judge, A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Judge Smith called the first case without mentioning mine again.  I stood and called his attention to his oversight, and he apologized.  The case was then scheduled for hearing last.  

When my case was called (actually next to last as it worked out), the judge asked the parties how long the arguments would take.  I answered it would depend upon which of the three “motions” he decided to hear first.  After a brief discussion, the judge chose to hear my demand to amend first.  It being my action with the burden of proof on my shoulders, I began my arguments in support of my demand with a statement of the justification for my amendment to the original pleadings. The original filing was a demand for injunctive relief which the court had decided to consider only a “routine” case.  The case was filed on November 7th, 2008, and in anticipation of an expedited ruling to take place prior to the inauguration on January 20th, 2009.  By considering the case “routine”, the court had condemned the action to becoming moot upon the completion of the inauguration.  Thus, it was necessary to amend the complaint to prevent the necessity of filing a completely new action.  It was only due to the scheduling by the court that the case had taken three months to be heard.  I also was demanding I be allowed to add the Governor and the State of NC as defendants, since the necessary actions required in my demand for injunctive relief were interstate actions and would necessitate the Governor be a party.

I then presented that it was the sworn duty of the court to support the Constitution of the United States in accordance with the court’s ( and all others involved in this action) Article VI, Section 7, (NC Constitution) oath, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2, (US Constitution), and in accordance with Article 1, Section 5, of the NC Constitution.  I admitted there was no statutory requirement for the State to do as I had demanded, but that the obligation and responsibility was a constitutional one, this being both an equity court and a constitutional court.  I listed the evidentiary facts which appeared to assert the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President in contravention to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution including, but not limited to, his failure to reveal his original birth certificate from Hawaii; his apparent use of an Indonesian passport in 1981, his multiple citizenships by birth and residence, none of which he has renounced; his failure to release his collegiate records which allegedly show he attended as a foreign student under an FS-1 foreign student visa; statements by the ambassador to the US from Kenya and his paternal grandmother which attest to his being born in Mombasa, Kenya; his having given false information on his application for an Illinois license to practice law in 1989, in that he averred he had no other names than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., when, in fact, he has used at least four other names over his lifetime; and the apparent falsity of his selective service registration.  I also showed the court the current issue of “Globe” magazine I had purchased that morning on the way to the courthouse, which highlighted on its cover, and in the article inside, the peril faced by the US military in its confusion over whether to execute the orders of a “President” who may in fact not be qualified.  The cover pictured 43-year-old First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, in uniform and in Iraq, one of many US soldiers who are questioning the authority of Obama’s presidency.  I explained that, should Obama survive the first four years of his presidency and decide to run again (a likelihood for which I admitted having very little hope), the issue of his eligibility would most certainly come up again; and, in the event he was proven ineligible, every action, appointment, order and law he had committed to during his first four years would be invalidated.   I tried to impress upon the court that this constitutional crisis could be averted by nipping the “rumors”, if in fact that is what we are dealing with here, of Obama’s ineligibility in the bud by allowing my amendment so that the complaint could continue.

Having exhausted my arguments to the court, I turned it over to the defense, which merely argued that the case against the Secretary of State was res judicata (judged previously), having been heard in my prior filing against her and dismissed; that my arguments were moot, since the inauguration had passed, and there was no claim upon which relief could be granted by the court; and that I lacked standing before the court to pursue this case.  Their arguments were brief, and the judge listened.  When the two attorneys for the State sat down, the judge denied my motion to amend.

We then proceeded directly to the State’s motion to dismiss.  They presented the same arguments in brief that had already been presented in the first hearing on the demand to amend, except they added that the ruling should be “with prejudice”.  Part of my defense against the motion to dismiss had already been presented as to the res judicata claim in the form of my prior complaint had been dismissed “without prejudice”, such that I could file the same complaint again. They also argued the issues of standing, mootness and jurisdiction.  When it was my turn, I repeated most of my arguments as well in the rebuttal, adding that mootness was not a valid defense because the offense of Obama’s illegitimacy was a continuing offense against the Constitution, not degraded nor invalidated merely on the grounds that he was now inaugurated falsely as President.  My argument against “standing” was my filing as a “class action”, and the argument against jurisdiction was, of course, the constitutional obligations of the court.  As to res judicata,
I explained to the judge that a ruling “without prejudice” did not deny leave to refile the case at a later date.

The judge didn’t buy any of it and allowed the motion to dismiss, along with the prayer for finding “with prejudice”, due to “mootness” (the inauguration issue); “failure to state a claim against which relief could be granted” (the “No State statute requires it” issue, which denies any constitutional duty or obligation); and “res judicata”.  Conspicuously absent from this list was the issue of “standing” which has killed all the other suits around the country, of which I am aware.  This last supports my theory that I had resolved the “standing” issue by filing a class action suit”, for which I offered myself as the representative of the registered voter “class” of North Carolina. I advised the court that I intended to appeal, but would appeal in writing within the allotted 30 days after the order is signed. 

I have no intention of appealing this ruling.  I will file a new case and improve on that one as I did from the first one filed in October to the second one filed in November.  It is ironic that, had the judge allowed my demand to amend the names of the Governor and the State of NC to the defendant list, I would be precluded from filing a new case against them as it would be “res judicata”. 

It is important that we continue to push this issue of legitimacy in government, if only because we are currently involved in two foreign armed conflicts with more on the horizon, and the economy is on the edge of collapse.  Our military cannot continue to question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief because of the confusion of his nationality, and the “Stimulus Plan” is not going to help the economy.  As Sun Tsu told us, we must know the enemy and ourselves, or we can never be victorious in battle.  In the case of the United States government, the enemy is a mystery who changes with the tide; and, with Obama in the White House, even we ourselves are an unknown quantity.  We cannot win if we continue on this course.
END
March 20, 2009
DS”

Natural Born Citizen, Leo Donofrio, Vattel, Obama not natural born citizen, Ron Paul, Citizen Wells, US Constitution, Founding fathers, Marbury vs Madison, Citizens, Natives, Natural born citizen video

I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:

“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
 
Bad news.  He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th.  Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.

Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website.  Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment.  Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed.  The more the
RELEVANT references the better.   Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
 
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul.  Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
 
Are you’ll up to that challenge?  If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and
House.”

Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.

I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,
2008:

Natural born citizen explained

Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:

Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.

“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.

The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue.  I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution.  It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”.  A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced.  The difference is subtle, but so very important.  “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”.  It is a manner of acquiring citizenship.  And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Two different sentences.  Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”.  Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are.  Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states,  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says.   All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens.  A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”.  He’s a native forever.  He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens.  They are the same.  According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

He goes on as follows:

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.  That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”.  It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”.  Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.

When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President.  But the framers did read his work.  And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen.  That is clear in the Constitution.  Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”.  He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.

Citizen = legal status

Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.

Vattel also wrote:

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens.  Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age.  But nobody can renounce a fact of birth.  The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not.  The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.

And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States.  The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen.  Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”.  And to that distinction there can only be one effect:

ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.

According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous.  If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect.  According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.

President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.

FAREWELL.

I am not going to protest any longer.  As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak.  Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer.  I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here.  As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God.  Peace be with you.

Leo C. Donofrio

03.18.2009″

 

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/

 

I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.

Orly Taitz interview, Sunday, March 22, 2009, Radio interview, Quo Warranto, Obama ineligible, usapatriots-shout radio, Mieke and Therese show, Keyes lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Defending Our Freedoms Foundation

Just in:

“Mieke and Therese hosts of USAPatriots-shout, a blog talk radio program, share information that is rarely broadcast on main stream media (MSM). We believe the truth supersedes labeling, party affiliations, and “political correctness”.  Join them Sunday night as the great “Opinionators” give you their take on what’s happening with our country! 
 
Mark your calender
 you don’t want to miss this broadcast
 
Blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
 
Sunday night (03-22-09)  8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pacific Standard Time
 
 
We are proud and honored to welcome DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ
Topic is:
QUO WARRANTO
 
What ON EARTH is QUO WARRANTO?
WILL QUO WARRANTO BE THE METHOD TO MAKE OBAMA PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OR FORCE HIM TO STEP DOWN? 
 
Discover the answers to these and more questions this Sunday evening on blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout with Dr. Taitz
 
If you haven’t discovered Dr. Taitz, yet, you are in for a treat.  Those of you who have been following her heroic efforts will also have the opportunity to call and ask her questions.
 
 
“Dr. Orly Taitz, the principal attorney behind the Keyes lawsuit, was born in the Former Soviet Union. Dr. Taitz escaped from the FSU over 20 years ago to begin a life of freedom in the United States. Dr. Taitz has a successful dentistry practice in Orange County, California, and is a licensed attorney and real estate agent. Dr. Taitz speaks five languages. Dr. Taitz’ experiences under the totalitarian Communist regime convinced her that this is a path that she would rather not see the United States take. Therefore, Orly is committed to doing everything in her power to prevent such a disastrous mistake, and to defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States under the Constitution. Dr. Taitz has filed a second lawsuit associated with the Obama Eligibility Crisis that is currently before the Supreme Court and is working on a third lawsuit featuring active duty and retired military as plaintiffs. With Dr. Taitz’ help, Orly’s Keyes lawsuit has been successfully cloned in Florida and in Washington State, where other complaints are active. Dr. Taitz has just filed application for a foundation to carry on this work entitled the “Defending Our Freedoms Foundation”. “
 
New site launch: http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Country: United States
 
www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout this Sunday evening, March 22,  2009 between 8 and 10 pm Pacific Standard Time.  You may call 646-727-3865 to ask questions.
 
 What a great opportunity to call in or write and share and discuss these issues!
 
You can write to the chat room at www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
 
 call 646-727-3865
You can also post comments at
 
www.blogtalkradio.usapatriots-shout
or usapatriots-shout.blogspot.com”

Orly Taitz interview, March 17, 2009, Steve Malzberg, Lawsuits, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Scalia, Obama not eligible, Birth Certificate, Obama not natural born citizen, US Supreme Court, US Military plaintiffs, Malzberg radio show

From an email we received:

“We received word from Steve Malzberg that Attorney Orly Taitz will be on his show today.    
     As much of our country knows (and increasingly other parts of the world), she is the relentless California attorney who is seeking to have Mr. Obama release his Original Birth Certificate (and other documents) now to prove his eligibility for president, especially as our young troops are about to be sent to Mexico, as new “economic” measures are signed, etc.
     So, it’s a must catch, especially with all that’s happening.
    She will be on Super Steve’s show today, 3-17-09,
    at 4pm (Eastern), on 710-am radio…
    and online at  www.worradio.com. , http://www.wor710.com/
    http://www.wor710.com/pages/418904.php  3-6pm. (Eastern)
    Among other items, she will likely be discussing her recent public interactions with Supreme Court Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts.
    Again, this is a must catch, regardless of party, as any transparency issues  involving eligibility affect our nation right to local law enforcement, our military, etc. (many bcc’d herein).  Further, she will likely discuss  the apparently unbelievable actions of certain court employees.
    By the way, we have not seen the original birth certificate…nor have any of you.  So we don’t know whether there is eligibility or not. We think we all should know, especially those of us that voted for him.   Don’t you?
    Many of you will logically ask, as we did, “Well, he must have shown his birth certificate  when he was vetted.  I had to show mine for my job” (especially law enforcement).
   OK, we couldn’t find it; not at Party (both) sites, the State Departments, the Electors, etc.  If any of you can, please show us…or just save time and listen to Dr. Taitz and Super Steve.
   Please circulate; it is a most important show………..
, as we did, “Well, he must have shown his birth certificate when he was vetted.  I had to show it for my job” (especially law enforcement).
   OK, we couldn’t find it; not at Party (both) sites, the State Departments, the Electors, etc.  If any of you can, please show us…or just save time and listen to Dr. Taitz and Super Steve.
   Please circulate; it is a most important show………..”

Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/