Tag Archives: Jeff Schreiber explanation

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

** See Update Below **

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

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

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

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

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

** UPDATE **

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

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

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

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

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

WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!

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

Berg Response to Defense Motion for Protective Order, Jeff Schreiber explanation, October 9, 2008, Obama’s citizenship, constitutional requirements for the presidency, Obama campaign donations

Philip J Berg filed a motion in federal court today, Thursday, October 9, 2008 to dismiss the motion from Obama and the DNC to stay discovery until after the judge rules on a defense motion to dismiss. Jeff Schreiber, a law student, legal writer and blog owner has provided an explanation of Mr. Berg’s motion. Here are some exerpts:

“This morning, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg filed a response in opposition to the motion for protective order, a measure intended to stay discovery until after the judge rules on a defense motion to dismiss, filed by Barack Obama and the DNC on Monday.

In the response Berg insists, among other things, that he is not seeking the documents specified in his motion for expedited discovery for any improper purpose, that the information requested through discovery is of extreme importance and a matter of public safety, and argues that Barack Obama and the DNC

  • have not pointed to any “legitimate privacy concerns.”
  • have not pointed out any “substantiated specific examples” showing that disclosure of the information requested through discovery would “cause and defined and serious injury.”
  • have not effectively demonstrated “any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result” from turning over the requested documents.
  • have failed to show “good cause” and are not entitled to a protective order.

On the latter, Berg cites a 1994 decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals–the appellate court sitting here in Philadelphia and the natural next step in this case should the losing party in District Court choose to appeal–in which the court held that “good cause” exists when the moving party can specifically demonstrate “that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury” based upon a seven-factor test:

  1. Whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
  2. Whether the information is sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose;
  3. Whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment;
  4. Whether confidentiality is sought over information important to public health and safety;
  5. Whether sharing information among the litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;
  6. Whether a party who would benefit from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and
  7. Whether the case involves issues important to the public.”

Read more of the article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg keep Obama accountable:

http://obamacrimes.com

Show your outrage here:

http://obamaimpeachment.org