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
Showing posts with label phil berg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label phil berg. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
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
>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
Friday, November 7, 2008
We The People Writes to Barack Obama--Questions Persist
Bob Robbins has forwarded this link to "We the People". They have posted the following letter to Barack Obama:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Phil Berg To Appeal
Texas Darlin posts this Phil Berg press release:
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08
(Contact Info at End)
Berg v. Obama
No. 08-cv-04083
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is “NOT” qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08
(Contact Info at End)
Berg v. Obama
No. 08-cv-04083
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is “NOT” qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Berg Suit DIsmissed
Phil Berg's lawsuit has been dismissed, as per America's Right. H/t to several people who e-mailed and posted.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
But They Won't Cover Phil Berg's Law Suit
I just received the following message from Dan Friedman:
[One of the tricks you learn in Journalism 101 is do a report about a report of a politician responding to attacks rather than a story about the attack itself. That way you can repeat the attack, push it in the public's face, make the politician look like he's on the defensive, make his response appear partisan, even sneak in an unrelated bad-news poll - all with three degrees of separation and without giving away how badly you want the politician's opponent to win. The tactic carries a risk, though. If your readers are paying attention, it can make you look dumber than you already are. df]
From the NY Times-owned Boston Globe:
>"The John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign is striking back at a report about money spent on Palin's appearance.
"Politico reported that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 to clothe and accessorize Palin since she was picked by McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the bills include $75,063 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis and $49,426 at Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August." (emphasis moi)
###
[One of the tricks you learn in Journalism 101 is do a report about a report of a politician responding to attacks rather than a story about the attack itself. That way you can repeat the attack, push it in the public's face, make the politician look like he's on the defensive, make his response appear partisan, even sneak in an unrelated bad-news poll - all with three degrees of separation and without giving away how badly you want the politician's opponent to win. The tactic carries a risk, though. If your readers are paying attention, it can make you look dumber than you already are. df]
From the NY Times-owned Boston Globe:
>"The John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign is striking back at a report about money spent on Palin's appearance.
"Politico reported that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 to clothe and accessorize Palin since she was picked by McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the bills include $75,063 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis and $49,426 at Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August." (emphasis moi)
###
Friday, October 17, 2008
Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis--15,000 Signers of Petition So Far
Jim Crum sent the following emergency message posted on rallycongress.com:
A lawsuit has been filed with the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court requiring Mr. Obama to produce documents to prove he is constitutionally qualified to run for President. So far Mr. Obama has refused to produce the documents and is trying to fight the court order to produce the documents. Any American should be able to prove citizenship in less than a day. Why can't Mr. Obama?
Here is a link to the actual court documents - http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/Pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/
A constitutional crisis will rip our country apart. If this is not cleared up now we will have a crisis. If you care at all about America you must call for Mr. Obama to produce the documents and prove that he is eligible to be President.
Please call on Mr. Obama to produce the documents to prove his constitutional qualifications.
Thank you
To sign go to:
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
A lawsuit has been filed with the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court requiring Mr. Obama to produce documents to prove he is constitutionally qualified to run for President. So far Mr. Obama has refused to produce the documents and is trying to fight the court order to produce the documents. Any American should be able to prove citizenship in less than a day. Why can't Mr. Obama?
Here is a link to the actual court documents - http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/Pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/
A constitutional crisis will rip our country apart. If this is not cleared up now we will have a crisis. If you care at all about America you must call for Mr. Obama to produce the documents and prove that he is eligible to be President.
Please call on Mr. Obama to produce the documents to prove his constitutional qualifications.
Thank you
To sign go to:
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Pro-Obama Thugs Shut Down Phil Berg Interview--Please Protest
Phil Orenstein just forwarded this e-mail from Vigilant Freedom:
"On the No Compromise Show recently the guest was Attorney Phil Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against B.Hussein Obama asking to see Mr. Obama's birth certificate. After about 10 minutes into the conversation between No Compromise and Mr. Berg the show was shut down.
"There is no proof of what or whom promoted the outrageous lies, excuses and defamation of why the No Compromise show was shut down, but an educated guess would be it was most likely those same people who are suppressing the proof that Barack Hussein Obama does or does not qualify to be President of the USA.
"I understand that the host reported that:
"I was about 13 minutes into my show and BTR decided to remove my show right in the middle of my interview claiming that my show was “racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating or harassing; 2. contains falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage BlogTalkRadio or any other person;” stated BTR assistant Director of Customer Relations, Shannon Dingee-Kramer.
"Of course, Ms. Dingee-Kramer provided no proof of this apparent violation of this vague and arbitrary offense. It’s just pure opinion which seems to be more important than my opinion or Mr. Berg’s opinion.
"Her decision to remove my show was ARBITRARY and unacceptable! There was nothing abusive about my show on ANY level however, the action taken against me was very abusive!
"In fact, I find BTR’s and specifically, Ms. Dingee-Kramer’s opinion and action politically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating and harassing; 2. which contains falsehoods and misrepresentations that HAS damaged ME as a person!
"Those who are voting for Obama didn’t like my guest, nor my content, and they demanded my show be removed. Is this acceptable behavior? NO! Is this how BTR handles free speech issues? YES! They shut people down because they disagree with the speech?
"This is disgusting and Orwellian at best! The BTR leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves for their unAmerican actions! Americans should NOT care about offending people MORE than protecting one’s Right to speak! Where do you people live? North Korea?
"Regards
"Aeneas
Vigilant Freedom urges that you please email Blog Talk Radio to express your outrage at the way the No Compromise Show has been treated. Not sure who the appropriate person would be to complain about this free speech issue but there are some people who could perhaps be contacted for an explanation at the following link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/contactus.aspx
I have written the following message to Mr. Philip Recchia, Director, Programming and Communications, BlogTalkRadio:
Dear Mr. Recchia: I understand that thugs who support Barack Obama have shut down the Phil Berg interview. I have personally experienced harrassment from Obama supporters who triggered a spam mechanism on Blogger that shut down my blog (http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com). Similarly, there are reports of repeated incidents of harrassment, intimidation and attacks by the Obama campaign against all who disagree with it (see http://www.texasdarlin.wordpress.com who have been reporting on these and similar attacks on an ongoing basis).
I urge you to air Mr. Berg's interview in full. The lying and misrepresentation surrounding Barack Obama's candidacy has not been examined by the mainstream media. For instance, his residence in Indonesia for four years as a child and questions about the place of his birth are cloaked in secrecy. When Mr. Berg attempted to obtain simple documents such as birth certificate through the legal process, rather than simply provide the information Barack Obama and the DNC have preferred to fight revealing birth information in court. Yet, being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional requirement for presidency.
Your station would do a major public service by re-airing the Berg interview and not allowing pro-Obama thugs to inhibit free speech as they have done with respect to the mass media.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
"On the No Compromise Show recently the guest was Attorney Phil Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against B.Hussein Obama asking to see Mr. Obama's birth certificate. After about 10 minutes into the conversation between No Compromise and Mr. Berg the show was shut down.
"There is no proof of what or whom promoted the outrageous lies, excuses and defamation of why the No Compromise show was shut down, but an educated guess would be it was most likely those same people who are suppressing the proof that Barack Hussein Obama does or does not qualify to be President of the USA.
"I understand that the host reported that:
"I was about 13 minutes into my show and BTR decided to remove my show right in the middle of my interview claiming that my show was “racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating or harassing; 2. contains falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage BlogTalkRadio or any other person;” stated BTR assistant Director of Customer Relations, Shannon Dingee-Kramer.
"Of course, Ms. Dingee-Kramer provided no proof of this apparent violation of this vague and arbitrary offense. It’s just pure opinion which seems to be more important than my opinion or Mr. Berg’s opinion.
"Her decision to remove my show was ARBITRARY and unacceptable! There was nothing abusive about my show on ANY level however, the action taken against me was very abusive!
"In fact, I find BTR’s and specifically, Ms. Dingee-Kramer’s opinion and action politically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating and harassing; 2. which contains falsehoods and misrepresentations that HAS damaged ME as a person!
"Those who are voting for Obama didn’t like my guest, nor my content, and they demanded my show be removed. Is this acceptable behavior? NO! Is this how BTR handles free speech issues? YES! They shut people down because they disagree with the speech?
"This is disgusting and Orwellian at best! The BTR leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves for their unAmerican actions! Americans should NOT care about offending people MORE than protecting one’s Right to speak! Where do you people live? North Korea?
"Regards
"Aeneas
Vigilant Freedom urges that you please email Blog Talk Radio to express your outrage at the way the No Compromise Show has been treated. Not sure who the appropriate person would be to complain about this free speech issue but there are some people who could perhaps be contacted for an explanation at the following link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/contactus.aspx
I have written the following message to Mr. Philip Recchia, Director, Programming and Communications, BlogTalkRadio:
Dear Mr. Recchia: I understand that thugs who support Barack Obama have shut down the Phil Berg interview. I have personally experienced harrassment from Obama supporters who triggered a spam mechanism on Blogger that shut down my blog (http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com). Similarly, there are reports of repeated incidents of harrassment, intimidation and attacks by the Obama campaign against all who disagree with it (see http://www.texasdarlin.wordpress.com who have been reporting on these and similar attacks on an ongoing basis).
I urge you to air Mr. Berg's interview in full. The lying and misrepresentation surrounding Barack Obama's candidacy has not been examined by the mainstream media. For instance, his residence in Indonesia for four years as a child and questions about the place of his birth are cloaked in secrecy. When Mr. Berg attempted to obtain simple documents such as birth certificate through the legal process, rather than simply provide the information Barack Obama and the DNC have preferred to fight revealing birth information in court. Yet, being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional requirement for presidency.
Your station would do a major public service by re-airing the Berg interview and not allowing pro-Obama thugs to inhibit free speech as they have done with respect to the mass media.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Barack Obama Born in Kenya?
Texas Darlin concludes that Barack Obama may have been born in Kenya rather than Hawaii (h/t Bob Robbins). If so, this would make his occupation of the presidency unconstitutional.
TD writes:
"I have received an unverified tip that certified copies of a Kenyan Birth Certificate (BC) for Obama were sent from Kenya, and have been received by three separate individuals. I am told that these documents are certified, with an embossed seal, and display the name of the hospital where Obama was born, as well as witness signatures.
"Reportedly this BC reflects information filed Oct. 9 by Philip Berg. See item #18 on this docket, page 10, the relevant language of which, underlined in red, is captured here in a screen shot:
"…Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province…
"We do not currently have any additional confirmation of this new information. If it is an accurate tip, the implications are disastrous for Senator Obama and his backers. For that analysis, we proceed to Judah Benjamin…
TD writes:
"I have received an unverified tip that certified copies of a Kenyan Birth Certificate (BC) for Obama were sent from Kenya, and have been received by three separate individuals. I am told that these documents are certified, with an embossed seal, and display the name of the hospital where Obama was born, as well as witness signatures.
"Reportedly this BC reflects information filed Oct. 9 by Philip Berg. See item #18 on this docket, page 10, the relevant language of which, underlined in red, is captured here in a screen shot:
"…Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province…
"We do not currently have any additional confirmation of this new information. If it is an accurate tip, the implications are disastrous for Senator Obama and his backers. For that analysis, we proceed to Judah Benjamin…
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
