Tag Archives: PHILIP J. BERG

From the Zach Jones Blog: 

“Philip Berg, Esq. is Standing Tall For All of Us

(Even Without The Blessings of the Lower Court)

I for one would like to say thank you Mr. Berg!

Dear Sir:

I want to publicly extend my deepest appreciation to you, Mr. Berg, for taking on the enormous Constitutional crisis that is facing America; the possibility that a person who might not be eligible, under the requirements set forth in our Constitution, to hold the office for which he is being allowed to run. If your allegations are found to have merit it will mean that Sen. Obama, knowingly solicited hundreds of million of dollars in campaign contributions under fault pretenses from unsuspecting American citizens and voters. It will mean that he and others conspired to keep this information secret and intentionally thwarted Sen. Clinton’s chances of becoming the first female President of the United States. Thank you for bringing this action, Sir.

Fortunately for us all, every now and again, a cause will come along that will stir the soul and passions. What cause could be more important that standing tall against those who could be seeking to undermine our legal system for electing the President of The United States of America? Who among us would challenge those of such power and wealth who could be trying to win an office for which they are not eligible? Who among us would take on a Senator, one with a historic candidacy, who is wildly popular by any standard? A lawyer who would take on such a case would certainly be led down roads that seem to go on forever, that are full of obstacles, and that usually demand going on with little support or understanding from neighbors, friends or even family. Thank you for your courage and determination.

As you well know, the case that goes against the fleeting public emotional attachment carries the most risk to the lawyer. If the person challenged by an attorney is highly revered, the lawyer becomes a lightening rod for attack; just as the exceedingly despised defendant, who is defended in court against the desires of the mob. For those who don’t fully appreciate what I’m trying to say, watch the movie – To Kill a Mockingbird. Thank you Mr. Berg for standing up for us, knowing that to win or lose such a case would exact a high price from you.

Thank you for having the courage to take Berg v. Obama all the way to the Supreme Court in your efforts to advert such a possible travesty of Justice.

To those of you who may not be aware, Sen. Obama could have easily defended his eligibility to hold the U. S. Presidency by merely presenting exclusive proof of where and when he was born; and that he has never held a citizenship from another country that would nullify or call his U. S. citizenship into question. Sen. Obama chose not to answer the complaint; but instead, he chose to take the route of a legal technocrat seeking to challenge Mr. Berg’s “Standing to Sue”. When Sen. McCain was questioned about his birth certificate, he immediately presented a vault copy of his birth certificate showing the date and location of his birth, without legal hocus pocus.

“Standing to Sue” means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636

The Hon. R. Barclay Surrick decided Sen. Obama’s Motion to Dismiss in part on the following reasoning:

…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…

Everyone must fully understand the meaning of Judge Surrick’s decision in dismissing Mr. Berg’s lawsuit. First, it does not mean that Sen. Obama is in any way eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency. Second, it does mean that even if everyone knew that Sen. Obama was born on the moon, it would not matter regarding the decision about Sen. Obama’s Motion to Dismiss. Judge Surrick found that a voter would not suffer enough injury by the possible election of an ineligible candidate as President to grant him or her standing to be authorized under law to bring this type of lawsuit. Third, this challenge to Sen. Obama’s eligibility is not over.

If Citizens exercising the most precious right that we have under the Constitution, in what is expected to a free and fair election process, do not have standing – who does?

I would suspect, and also pray, that you do in fact have standing and that the higher courts will reinstate your action against Sen. Obama, et alli. However, it wouldn’t hurt if some people who clearly have an even bigger stake in the outcome of Berg. v Obama would join with you as plaintiffs in the action.

Those I’m thinking about are Sen. John McCain, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Congressman Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the other candidates of the Democratic Primary. I want to publicly challenge each one of the people to stand with Phillip Berg, Esq., to prevent the possible election of a person who may not meet the requirements under the Constitution of The United States to hold the Office of the Presidency.

I also want to challenge each of you reading this thank you letter to contact the above named individuals and encourage them to take their “Standing” and stand up for America and its system of laws.

Even though this decision was to be expected, it must have weighed heavily on you, Mr. Berg. Thank you for bearing this disappointment for America with grace and continuing on.

I don’t know that there are any short cuts to doing a good job.
Sandra Day O’Connor

Sincerely,

Zach Jones, a/k/a ZachJonesIsHome.wordpress.com“