Phil Berg Says Write To SCOTUS Justices Re Birth Certificate

Phil Berg's office released this e-mail last week:

November 13, 2008

We have received a lot of emails asking what you can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.

You as citizens can individually address letters to all the Court Justices and address your concerns regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as the President of the United States according to the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

United States Supreme Court
1 First Street NE
Washington DC 20543

The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

Respectfully,

Lisa
Assistant to Philip J. Berg
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG



Obamacrimes.com

Berg Writ of Certiorari From Court, Not Order to Obama, Due December 1

UPDATE

Andy Martin sent two e-mails concerning the original blog that follows the dashed line:

1.Well, actually, "response due December 1" is only a citation of the SC Rules which call for a reply in 30 days. There is no time limit on action by the court.

2. The injunction was denied. The SC online docket is not the best, but a subsequent entry using the search under docket number confirms denial.

The original blog follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A poster to this blog has noted that the calendar of the Supreme Court is readily available here. The calendar clearly states this concerning Berg v. Obama here:

>Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

I am not an attorney but I looked up the term certiorari on Wikipedia:

"A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send the record in a given case for review."

So that means that the Supreme Court will decide on whether to review the Berg case on December 1. As well, an application for an injunction was filed pending disposition of the petitition for the writ of certiorari.

It does not seem to mean that there has been a court order requiring that Obama provide the vault copy birth certificate. Kick me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court calendar seems pretty clear. The decision on certiorari is required by December 1, the request for an injunction is pending a positive decision on the writ, which is also due December 1. That means that at this point nothing is due from Obama, and unless the Supreme Court grants the writ of certiorari, the case dies.

Is Phil Berg's Souter Writ of Certiorari Real?

I had previously blogged about an Atlas Shrugs report that Supreme Court Justice Souter has issued a Writ of Certiorai requiring President-elect Obama to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate. In an e-mail, Andy Martin questions Phil Berg's claim that there is a court order:

>I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.

Andy Martin

Potential Constitutional Crisis

Reader Ms. J Kulig has sent me a link to Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.'s excellent post concerning a potential crisis following the possible election of Barack Obama (hopefully a non-event):

Vieira notes:

>In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him-—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

Dr. Vieira is absolutely right. The quality of our courts have deteriorated to the point where the courts have become ringleaders of a democratic lynch mob. Vieira goes on to slice, dice and execute the judge's competence. What gives the court authority? If it is not the Constitution, then why should anyone pay attention to the courts, other than their potential threat of violence? And if that is all the courts have to offer, then perhaps honest, God fearing Americans should consider constituting a Lockean militia and removing the judicial thugs from office and sending them down the Delware River in tar and feathers.

Vieira adds:

"In fact...Every American has what lawyers call "an implied cause of action"—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That "Case[ ]" is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a "Case[ ]" in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted."

Read the whole article here.

Ms. J Kulig asks:

"Have you received a response back yet from the FEC regarding BO's BC?

"I am extremely concerned that this is going to cause a constitutional crisis. And here's an interesting question that no one is asking: "If I vote for Barack Obama am I disenfranchising myself, aiding and abetting, committing felony treason and other crimes if Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold office?"
I thought you would enjoy reading this artcle written by a Harvard JD/Constitutional Attorney. Maybe you could post it on your blog."

My response:

I am enjoying Dr. Veira's article. I have received one rebuff after the next from the FEC and the state board of elections. I would call our election system a mismanaged sham. It is as bad as the judicial system.

Letter from New Reader

Mitchell,

You have a great citizen blog, which I plan to read regularly from now on.

Thank you for posting the petition to support Larry Berg’s lawsuit...

Thank you,

Ann

Robert Taylor Argues For Supreme Court Case

Dear Mr. Philip Berg, Esq.: The Ruling from Judge R. Barclay Surrick could be a Blessing in disguise. I was trying to figure out how a curcit court judge in Pennsylvania, could take Obama off the Ballots of the other 49 States. So, don't hold back any punches at the Supreme Court and put up a Great Case. Thank you, Robert A. Taylor II.

Newsmax Covers Phil Berg Case

Phil Berg is making major headway. What is amazing about this Newsmax story is that it exists. Until now, the PAM , including O'Reilly and Fox have been reluctant to carry anything about the birth certificate. It has been like the Federal Reserve Bank, a topic that the PAM insults the intelligence of its viewers by not discussing. This is very encouraging. Very encouraging:

>A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.

The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.

The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.

By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings...

Read the whole thing here.

Phil Berg Files Motion Re Obama Birth Certificate

Obamacrimes.com (h/t Bob Robbins) notes that Phil Berg has been hard at work, filing a response to the Obama campaign's and DNC's motion to dismiss on his case demanding that Obama show him his birth certificate. Would you go to court in order to stop someone from seeing your birth certificate, or would you take it out of your file cabinet and show it to whomever?

Obamacrimes.com writes

"Mr. Berg provides precedents which he argues establish his standing and petitions the Court to deny dismissal and order the defendants to produce the documents in the previously requested discovery.

"The conclusion of Mr. Berg's brief reads:

Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama’s eligibility through Subpoenas to the Government entities and the Hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiff has not received the requested discovery from the Defendants and two (2) of the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoena.

"or the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery, including but not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate; and (2) a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and (3) a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of majority. If the Court is inclined to grant Defendants motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint pursuant to the findings of this Honorable Court.

Obamacrimes links to Phil Berg's motion, which is here.