Berg to U.S. Supreme Court this Afternoon

Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg will be at the United States Supreme Court at 3:15 p.m. today to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as well as an application to Justice Souter–the applicable Justice given this region–for an immediate injunction to stay the presidential election currently only five days away.

Berg, who filed suit in district court here in Philadelphia back on August 21 alleging that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States, said that he hopes the Supreme Court will “do the right thing” by the United States Constitution and the American people and hear the case on its merits and, in so doing, avoid a constitutional crisis.

“This crisis can be averted,” Berg said, “if the Supreme Court grants the injunction pending a review of this case, if the Court insists that Obama turn over certified documentation showing that he is a ‘natural born’ United States Citizen. If he cannot produce that documentation, he should be removed from the presidential ballot.”

Berg’s case was dismissed a week ago tomorrow by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on grounds that Berg could not prove injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing to sue. In his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Berg insists that he does have standing, and that much of the harm was caused by Obama’s failure to live up to his promises to uphold the United States Constitution.

An excerpt from the writ, on the standing issue:

The very essence of civil liberty, wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. Against the backdrop of historical Supreme Court precedent beginning with Marbury and extending through Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008), the better-informed “test” for the injury-in-fact prong of the standing doctrine analysis more resembles a “sliding scale” of factors and variables operating as a function of the speculative nature and/or remoteness of the allegations. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 (1972); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998); Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008); Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000).

In Morton, this Court held that the environmentalist plaintiffs had standing, as injury to “aesthetic and environmental well-being” was enough to adequately constitute personal “stake” and injury in fact. 405 U.S. at 734. Subsequently, in Hunt, this Court held that despite a lack of personal “stake,” an association has standing to bring suit so long as the interests in question are relevant to the organization’s purpose and regardless of whether the claims asserted or relief requested involve the individual members of the organization. 432 U.S. at 343. Furthermore, in Laidlaw, a case stemming from noncompliance with the Clean Water Act, this Court noted the importance of a plaintiff’s demonstration of standing but followed up by stating that “it is wrong to maintain that citizen plaintiffs facing ongoing violations never have standing to seek civil penalties.” 528 U.S. at 184. More recently, in Akins, this Court rendered a decision maintaining that individual voters’ inability to obtain alleged public information met the injury in fact requirement, as it helped to ensure that the Court will adjudicate “a concrete, living contest between adversaries.” 524 U.S. at 21. Similarly and finally, in APCC, decided by this Court in June 2008, the conventional, “personal stake” approach promulgated in cases such as Lujan and Baker gave way to the idea that the “personal stake” requirement and the three requirements of standing—injury in fact, causation and redressibility—are “flip sides of the same coin” and are simply two different ways of ensuring that each case or controversy presents “that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination.” APCC, 128 S.Ct. at 2543.

The case at hand may lack the specificity of injury in fact required by Lujan, but the allegations from which the action arises are no more speculative or remote than the importance of environmental aesthetics of Morton or the party disconnect evident in Hunt. The foundation of the claims presented by Mr. Berg, the will to avoid a certain constitutional crisis, certainly amount to a “personal stake,” but in the case that this Court may deem otherwise, the underlying claims absolutely present the adversarial contest under which standing was found in the recent decisions in Akins and APCC.

Without a doubt, the Respondents will note that the premise behind Akins was the failure to obtain information, and will attempt to distinguish APCC because it involves standing in the context of contracts, assignors and assignees. However, Mr. Berg has indeed sought information vital to the election process put forth in the U.S. Constitution, and this Court in APCC stated that, apart from historical precedent for permitting suits by assignees under assignments for collection, “[i]n any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more recent decisions of this Court.” Furthermore, this Court’s treatment of the standing doctrine in APCC should be enough to show that the reasoning exhibited by the district court judge, grounded in Lujan, misperceives the three prongs of standing as enunciated just four months ago by this Court.

Therefore, because of the reasons stated above, because of the “sliding scale” nature of a “test” for injury in fact, because the very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury, this Court should hold that the Petitioner has standing to prosecute this action and reverse the decision from the district court which maintains otherwise.

On a promissory estoppel claim which, in my opinion, is a tempting but populist stretch (errors in formatting/indenting are on my end):

Barack Obama and the DNC made promises to the Petitioner and to the American people, reasonably expecting—in fact, counting on the idea—that the promises would induce reliance, those promises induced the Petitioner to expend money and billable hours and the American public to donate more than $600 million to Obama’s campaign, and injustice can only be avoided by adjudication in this Court.

A cause of action under promissory estoppel arises when a party relies to his detriment on the intentional or negligent representations of another party, so that in order to prevent the relying party from being harmed, the inducing party is estopped from showing that the facts are not as the relying party understood them to be. Thomas v. E.B. Jermyn Lodge No. 2, 693 A.2d 974, 977 (Pa.Super. 1997)(citing Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community College, 539 A.2d 1298, 1306 (Pa.Super.), app. denied, 555 A.2d 116 (1988)). Promissory estoppel is applied to enforce a promise which is not supported by a binding contract. Carlson v. Arnot-Ogden Mem’l. Hosp., 918 F.2d 411, 416 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding promissory estoppel is unwarranted in light of court’s finding that parties formed an enforceable contract); Bosum Rho v.Vanguard OB/GYN Assocs., P.C., No.Civ.A.98-167, 1999 WL 228993, at *6 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 15, 1999).

With regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is manifested, and not actual, intent which is paramount. The question is not what Obama and the DNC actually intended, as Judge Surrick claimed in his Memorandum, but rather what the Petitioner and the American public, as promisees, were justified in understanding that intent to be. There is no sound reason to suffer the harms in question because the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania incorrectly dismissed the Promissory Estoppel claim. Judge Surrick claimed the DNC’s promises were not actually promises but instead of statement of intentions. Judge Surrick went on further claiming “The ‘promises’ that Plaintiff identifies arc statements of principle and intent in the political realm. They are not enforceable promises under contract law. Indeed, our political system could not function if every political message articulated by a campaign could be characterized as a Legally binding contact enforceable by individual voters, Of course, voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises and Federal courts, however, are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric.”

The DNC and Obama made promises in writing which were posted on their website to lure people to donate money based on their promises. The DNC named this document “Renewing America’s Promise,” which presents the 2008 Democratic National Platform. In this document, the DNC promises among other things “use technology to make government more transparent, accountable and inclusive,” “maintain and restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return our Nation to the best traditions, including their commitment to government by law” and “work fully to protect and enforce the fundamental Constitutional right of every American vote — to ensure that the Constitution’s promise is fully realized”.

Obama placed on his website and stated on national television his promise to open and honest Government and his promise to truthfully answer any questions asked of him.

As a result of his detrimental reliance on these promises, Plaintiff donated money and billable hours to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC did in fact break promises by promoting an illegal candidate to run for and serve, if elected, as President of the United States, clearly in violation of the United States Constitution and in violation of their promise to enforce the fundamental Constitutional rights of every American voter. Furthermore, Obama has not answered, in an honest manner, questions about his citizenship. Moreover, Obama has breached his promise to uphold our Constitution; Obama is a Constitutional lawyer and is well aware he is ineligible to serve as the United States President. This is hardly an example of being open and honest, this is hardly an example of open and honest government, and it is neither the way to uphold our United States Constitution, nor the Oath of Office taken by Obama.

According to Berg, a television crew from Fox News Channel will be present to follow him as he files the documents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, a rally is being planned for 3:00 p.m. today on the steps of the Court.

As I’ve written over the past few days, however, the odds of the writ being granted and the case actually being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are slimmer than slim. Still, Berg is optimistic.

“We are at a crucial time for the United States of America,” Berg said. “I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will do what is necessary to avoid a certain constitutional crisis.”

UPDATE, 6:00pm

The rally at the courthouse was attended by about 30 people, Berg said, and coverage of what he called a “news conference” was provided by Fox News and a European news service (the name of which escapes me now). Apparently, the filing may be mentioned on tonight’s Fox Report w/ Shepherd Smith, but nothing is confirmed.

Two America’s Right readers were there, one of which described the coverage as “sadly thin.” The other said it was “nice, but could have been a little bigger.”



  1. Anonymous says:

    Am I missing something, or did Berg use the wrong date on his filing? It states that ‘Judge Surrick issued an Order on Friday, *September* 24, 2008 dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for lack of standing.’ Wasn’t it *October* 24th, 2008? See:

  2. Jet says:

    New article by Judah Benjamin on his opinion of the Berg suit and the consequences of electing Obama if it is later discovered that he really isn’t a natural born citizen.

    One Nation Divisible Under Obama? Not Indivisible Under God.

    “I would have hoped that if the Union were ever again to be imperiled it might at least be in a cause as noble as the Abolition of Slavery. To imperil it for the vanity of a single individual is unimaginably petty!”

    By Judah Benjamin, Guest Author
    Before I do anything else, I want to re-state my position on the subject of Barack Hussein Obama II, clearly and unequivocally, since a number of people have chosen to willfully misrepresent it both here and elsewhere on the Internet.

    Barack Hussein Obama II was, on the admission of his own Campaign, born Dual National (American and UK), and subsequently acquired another Nationality (Kenyan) in place of one (UK) of the initial two. He then, in my opinion, acquired a fourth Nationality (Indonesian). While there is no question that his third Nationality (Kenyan) lapsed when he was 21 years old, he may still hold the fourth (Indonesian) that he acquired by virtue of adoption.

    I have always claimed that he was a citizen of the USA by birth. I have always said that I believe he was born in Hawaii. I have stated that I do not believe he has ever lost US Nationality and indeed I cannot account for his present name, the contents of the COLB, or a number of other points, if he has.

    I do believe that he should have lost US Nationality, under the Law of Indonesia and International Law, but I cannot, myself, see any way he could have under US Law as it stands today. I do not believe that either the Sarah Onyango tape or the API tape are to be believed in, or relied upon, though I am prepared to be persuaded.

    I do not believe he was born in Kenya or Zanzibar, though I am prepared to be persuaded. I do not know for sure if the supposed COLB published by his Campaign is a forgery, though I was momentarily swayed at one point. I do not understand the arguments between those who understand, or claim to understand, digital matters though it seems to me that the only wholly reliable view is that of L E Daniel. I am strongly inclined to believe that it is a forgery simply because it contains the details that it does and if Obama was adopted in Hawaii, it should not. However I can easily imagine that it could be absolutely genuine because he was adopted in Indonesia and the Hawaiian Authorities knew nothing of it. Against that is the fact that he is fighting so hard to prevent the original Long Version Vault Copy from ever seeing the light of day.

    In any event, even if the COLB were genuine my argument on his Eligibility would be wholly unaffected. I do not see any legal route by which his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng could ever have possessed a Hawaiian Birth Certificate and I do not believe that she ever has. And I have grounds based in Legal Record to presume that she never has possessed a Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

    In short, I accept virtually nothing in Berg’s Suit as having merit and I believe that Obama is and has always been a US Citizen under INA 1952 and the XIVth Amendment. However, I do believe that it is the duty of the Court, all this Standing nonsense aside, to hear and Adjudicate his pleading (I am inclined to the view that Surrick‘s argument on Standing in this Case ignores utterly the contents of the Xth Amendment. It certainly ignores the ideas behind Marbury v Madison). The only exception I can find to that depends upon the issue of whether or not one may expatriate oneself by action without intention or declaration. There is precedent on both sides there, and were the court to come down in favor of action without intention, Obama’s actions in Kenya might well be expatriating in his particular case.

    I am also firmly and absolutely convinced that he is not Eligible to hold the Office of POTUS under Article II of the Constitution by virtue of the fact that he has held a Nationality other than that of the USA in the past and may still do so. If being a Naturalized Citizen is a Disqualification so is Dual Nationality under the XIVth Amendment, whether or not one has ceased to be Dual National, because of the Appearance and likelihood of Foreign Allegiance, in my opinion. Only the Supreme Court can decide if this view is correct, but the Common Law seems clear and explicit on this point.

    Berg’s Case is not mine, Berg is arguing the issue of Obama’s US Citizenship, I am arguing the issue of his Natural Born Status and these arguments are not identical. Of course, should Berg prove to be correct, my point becomes irrelevant simply because Obama would not ever have been any kind of US Citizen, or would have ceased to be one, but I think Berg is wrong, in Law and in fact, and I have never said otherwise, to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Berg’s case can be proved wrong, mine can only be adjudged wrong. In that Berg is now, so far as I can tell, calling for a Writ of Certiorari ( I should prefer a Writ of Mandamus) he is, in effect, setting up a situation in which both arguments must be considered.

    As for any issues of Obama’s biological paternity, or of bigamy in the marriage of his mother to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, the first is a Legal non sequitur and the second Legally incorrect since the “marriage” with Kezia was not Legally sanctioned. I believe his mother was married Legally to BHO, Sr, else I could not account for all other factors.

    I agree wholeheartedly with everything Dr Vieira has said though. I can find no fault with any of his major points.

    Article II is absolute. It does not allow for wiggle room, to qualify an individual MUST be a Natural Born Citizen. Unfortunately there is, currently, no Statute definition of what that term means and so, since the issue has now arisen it now needs to be adjudicated and then legislated. I may be convinced that Article II is clear and utterly straightforward but most people don’t seem to get it. Likewise the position of dual, or in Obama’s case quadruple, nationality needs to be addressed because in strict Statute Law it simply doesn’t exist and it seems to clash with all US Law on Naturalization and with the Constitution. It does, you know, read the Oath of Allegiance. However you cut it the Supreme Court ought to make, and has a duty to make a determination, not simply weasel out of it on grounds of Standing. Look up Marbury vs Madison.

    If you vote for Obama and he is not a Natural Born Citizen, you disenfranchise yourself. If you vote for Obama and he is not a Natural Born Citizen you are explicitly breaking the Constitution. If you vote for Obama and he is not a Natural Born Citizen you are aiding the enemy of the Constitution, you are, de iure, in a condition of Rebellion. If you assist Obama and he is not a Natural Born Citizen you are, de iure, in a condition of Rebellion. Dr Vieira did not say it, so let me say it for him, a squalid case of Nationality Fraud has been elevated from a minor irregularity to the level of Treason Felony and Misprision, and if you think I’m joking go look up the appropriate Legal texts, including the Constitution.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to consider the words of Dr Vieira very carefully. If Barack Hussein Obama II, or Barry Soetoro if you prefer his other Legal Name, is Ineligible to hold the Office of President of the United States he can never preside over any Administration. In Legal terms therefore, should he gain Election by the Electoral College and then proceed to Inauguration there would be no Legitimate Federal Government, of any Branch, that is if I follow Dr Vieira’s argument correctly. At that point the United States of America would, in effect, cease to exist among the Community of Nations. Unlike 1861 the Union would not be broken, it would be utterly dissolved upon the Winds of Time, as if it had never been.

    I have said this is a Crisis as grave as that which smote the Union with the Election of 1860 and the disaster of the Confederate Secessions. If Dr Vieira is correct, and I bow willingly before his great knowledge of the Law and Constitution, this Crisis is far worse. The Civil War never actually threatened the utter Legal extinction of the Union. Even had the Confederacy triumphed, as with God’s good Grace it did not, there would still have been a Union, albeit reduced in size and influence.

    Should a Usurpation occur that would not be so, any State, Texas or Alaska for example, could go its own way without any Legal consequences and some might.

    That of course is just a theory, but so is the Union itself, so is the Republic and also the Constitution.

    What would happen in the Real World of actions and facts I know not, nor can imagine. Certainly the effects would be grave, for if so be Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural Born Citizen you may be certain that the British, Australians, Canadians, etc, the European Powers, including the Russians and others, the Chinese, Israelis, Indonesians, etc, etc know it already and might find it convenient to revoke Treaties, repudiate debts, etc, etc. Then again they might not, preferring to co-operate with the De Facto Government in Washington. Perhaps to shore it up and to bolster and enhance the power of President Obama over the people of his new Republic. The USA itself has done as much before now to other countries in the name of Democracy or Self Interest. A nightmare to those of us who live here but not a cause for sleepless nights to those abroad.

    And all for what? Just so that Barack Hussein Obama II doesn’t have to produce his Birth Certificate? Just so that Barack Hussein Obama II doesn’t have to prove his Citizenship beyond all reasonable doubt? I would have hoped that if the Union were ever again to be imperiled it might at least be in a cause as noble as the Abolition of Slavery. To imperil it for the vanity of a single individual is unimaginably petty!

    It is true that Barack Obama could never prove to my satisfaction that he is a Natural Born Citizen under Article II, for to my perception he is not, and has never been, regardless of his place of birth. He could, however surely prove it to the satisfaction of those who require no more than Birth Citizenship. That he has not done so is unconscionable and egregious, for that alone his Candidacy should be invalidated. If he cannot, and if he cannot he knows he cannot, he should be arrested and charged with any and every Offense the DOJ can think of.

    To me the most awful aspect of this whole mess is that, if I am right, it has arisen from a commonplace, tawdry, gaming of Nationality Laws that is happening every day around the world. Something for which, let it be said, Obama himself was not originally responsible, it was his mother’s doing and not his. However, it is his responsibility that it has brought us to this Crisis and it is the responsibility of the DNC that they have aided and abetted him actively. It is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State that they have failed to act in the matter, as most of them are empowered to do. It is the responsibility of the Media that they have puffed him like a new brand of toothpaste and failed to vet or check him. It is the responsibility of Judge Surrick who, however sure he was that Phillip J Berg was talking nonsense, should nonetheless have avoided talking nonsense himself and rejecting the suit on grounds quite as frivolous as any he might contend Berg employed in bringing it.

    I do not believe there is a great conspiracy, I believe there is a great deal of laziness and total unwillingness to accept responsibility or to admit to ignorance. We are in danger of being destroyed not by some cunning mastermind or evil conspiracy but by stupidity and inertia and by people who think that he would never have got this far without being detected if he were not Eligible. Well he has! Or, at least, he has got this far without having satisfied the Constitutional Requirement, and so far as I can see does not ever intend to do so.

    But what do I know? I’m not a Lawyer, my Doctorate is not a JD, I’m just a Historian. I know this, I respect and revere the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I have read, studied and understood both, Barack Hussein Obama II understands neither Document. respects neither Document and is as abysmally ignorant of the Common Law as set forth in Blackstone and Kent as the most poorly educated of his followers could possibly be, a JD from Harvard Law notwithstanding. Just my opinion, of course, and as I keep being informed I’m only an ignorant nutjob, but if you don’t believe me, ask Dr Vieira.

  3. Jeff Schreiber says:

    THAT document, the one with the wrong date, is the notice of appeal to the THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, not the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court.

    Not good, but Berg’s goal was to go to SCOTUS in the first place.

    Here’s the relevant text from the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, to Berg the document that matters:



    The Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Berg v. Obama, et al, 08-cv-4083 (2008), is attached to the Appendix as Exhibit “A”.


    The United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered its Order on October 24, 2008. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2101(e), Mr. Berg having asserted below and asserting in this petition the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Berg does seem to have a bit of a problem with dates; either that, or the person who types his work has the problem and Berg doesn’t proofread.

    Remember that his original request for injunctive relief gave a September 31 date. Now he bases his appeal on a September 24 judgment date.

    Strange, when in the preceding sentence he correctly sets out the October 24 date of final order.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I see that a Gordon Stamper has filed an application and notice of Motion to Intervene.

    Can a person intervene after the dismissal?

    Or would intervention attach to the appellate case?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Very little notice was given for the rally. I wish I could’ve gone to the court.

    Here it is Thursday night and no “October Surprise”?!

    As Gomer Pyle would say: “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise”…Well, there is none! And I wouldn’t be “surprised”, if tomorrow on Halloween, API comes out with a sense of humor and says: “Trick or Treat…sorry no treat for you Americans, only a trick…no tape…sorry!”.

    ROTFLMAO…they had some of us hoping…now didn’t they?! Of course, not me. You see, I can catch onto a con when they just “talk” and never produce, sort of like Obama, a very good con man that hasn’t produced much!

    I’m not sure what everyone is thinking, but I think YOU ALL think, some tape or decision is going to come out and “save the day”. Aint gonna happen, especially, with only 4 full calendar days left. Come on now, let’s be real.

    These die hard liberals won’t bat an eye even if Obama did say “jews have created genocide”, they simply do not care. Even jews who are die-hard democrats, like George Soros, wouldn’t be offended of that statement. My god, George Soros would probably agree with that statement!

    The “moderate” Democrats, maybe just maybe you can get to them, but they need days for it to sink into their pysche! Hell, the liberals are trying to get Al Franken elected, a self-admitting tax evader in 17 states. Liberals don’t care! They simply do not care! Many, in that party, have no moral compass, or a since of duty or obligation to America.

    I wrote to Jeff, and told him to tell Berg, that the window of opportunity was last week for Hillary to come forward and DEMAND answers regarding the birth certificate issue (now sealed by the Governor of Hawaii). Hello. Berg does NOT have a following, but Hillary has a following that ranks in the millions. Millions of supporters would have listened to Hillary, but instead, Berg’s following of about 30 people showed up today. That’s crap. There could’ve been thousands there today of Hillary supporters. But instead, Bill Clinton is out there stomping for Obama, and Hillary is trying to promote Al Franken. What a pity, and what a missed opportunity!

    Now, WHEN (not if, but when) Obama is elected on Nov. 4th, at best he will be impeached if he doesn’t meet the qualifications to be president, and then, we as a country will have the “thoughtful” or “thoughtless” Joe Biden as president…lucky us. Perhaps good for entertainment I guess.

    Well, Obama beat us to the punch-line, but in the end, the joke will be on him. We can only hope.


  7. Anonymous says:
  8. Anonymous says:

    I sent a letter to PAC according my offer in

    This letter was sent on Oct 30, 2008 at about 6:30pm to:

    The National Republican Trust PAC
    (PAC – Political Action Committee)
    (there is a contact form on the site).

    Those who feel that this matter pertains to them may wish to send
    his/her own letter there and/or share it with anybody.
    Subject: Getting VIDEO "October Surprise" on National TV. Uphold Constitution.

    Dear Madams and Sirs,

    I'm writing to you about a matter of the extreme importance because I believe that only your organization PAC (Political Action Committee) may help NOW. I don't know why this matter isn't covered by MSM. Everybody may have different opinions about views, policies, characters, etc. of both candidates for Presidency. But I think that every citizen of this great country – The US – will agree that Constitution of The US is sacred and has to be upheld always.

    So this matter is coming like a shock for those who didn't know about it.

    Not eligible to be President of the US according Constitution? Why???

    Watch VIDEO:
    "Obama's Citizenship: … (Ep. 6: October Surprise)" 11 min
    3,800,000+ Views (about the lawsuit Philip Berg v. Obama & DNC; Philip Berg is a lifelong Democrat, a prominent attorney from PA). You can also get to this VIDEO by using Google: October Surprise, YouTube; the first link will be on target.

    The same VIDEO can be seen here:
    October 11, 2008
    "This could be the game changer"
    or here
    Saturday, October 11, 2008
    "Philip Berg Interview Hits YouTube"

    It seems this matter is of interest for everybody.
    We can't wait until MSM dare to inform us about this.

    Instead of the simple solution for this matter (to show in the court all necessary documents confirming eligibility; see e.g..
    "Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit")
    Obama & DNC chose a tactic of delays and other legalities. At last, after 2 months and many motions from both sides the judge ordered to dismiss the case not on merits but because of lack of "standing" for Ph. Berg.
    Saturday, October 25, 2008
    "Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court"
    The reason: Ph. Berg as a citizen doesn't have STANDING.
    It means he doesn't have the right to ask questions about candidate's eligibility according Constitution to be President of the US ???

    From the article above:
    "…This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I
    don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

    I believe WE THE PEOPLE (it means any of US THE PEOPLE) have the right to stand up and ask those questions. If our questions aren't answered properly, WE THE PEOPLE can "solve" this case on Nov 4, 2008 (if we have necessary information) according our consciousness, conscience and hearts.

    Citizen Wells

    was "..contacting the secretary of state or commonwealth in all states…" and stated that
    "…Election officials and Electors in all 50 states and DC will be held accountable to uphold the US Constitution….". As of now he received only formal answers without considering the substance of his requests.

    Of course Ph. Berg will appeal this case to the Appeal Court and further to the Supreme Court of the US. But as they say, FEMIDA is blind and slow. There isn't time to wait (just several days before the elections) until there will be a decision and/or media dare to inform US THE PEOPLE.

    Because of that I implore you to ACT immediately – please help to show that VIDEO "October Surprise" (right now only 3,800,000+ Views – it's too little) on National TV before the elections. I'm sure you have necessary resources, possibilities and guts for that. This way all people will get the absolutely necessary information before the elections day Nov 4, 2008.

    P.S. I described above as I could this matter and my feelings about it.
    An addition: needs to be checked out!
    "No records that Obama was born at Queens Hospital, Hawaii ???"

  9. msjkulig430 says:

    The main stream media is not disclosing the truth about this Obama (shocker). Obama’s web site is also receiving millions of dollars in contributions from over seas at $25 at a time (under $200 at a time does not requite the name of the contributor to be published). For those of you who do not know, this is illegal.

    Whatever you can contribute will get this important commercial on to the TV stations in swing states where Obama is saturating every station with his socialist ideology.

  10. Christoph says:

    You people are batshit crazy. It’s embarrassing that you support the same substantive causes I do.

  11. Anonymous says:

    This was in the Chicago Tribune today.
    Obama birth certificate rumor debunked
    By James Janega

    Tribune reporter

    October 30, 2008

    A persistent rumor circulated by opponents of Barack Obama in recent weeks questions the authenticity of his birth certificate from Hawaii, despite the fact that the Obama campaign debunked the rumor in June.

    In the Tribune’s political blog “The Swamp” last week, reporter Mark Silva produced a copy of Obama’s birth certificate and addressed the birthplaces of both presidential candidates.

    Sen. John McCain, Silva wrote, “was born to American parents, his father serving as a submariner in the U.S. Navy at the Coco Solo base in the Panama Canal Zone when and where young John Sidney McCain III was born. Barack Hussein Obama II — and yes, he actually has joked that he got his middle name from people who never thought he’d be running for president — was born in Hawaii, in 1961, and has a birth certificate to show for it.”

    Conservative critics have suggested that Obama may have been born outside the U.S. and is not a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency. But they present no evidence that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

    In June, the Obama campaign released an electronic copy of the certificate bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and showing that Barack Hussein Obama II was born to mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

    Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.

    But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.

    “It looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate,” Okubo said.

    Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday that the document was authentic.

    The issue of whether Obama is a “natural born citizen”—a citizen at birth—was raised in a June 10 article on the conservative Web site World Net Daily.

    Article II of the U.S. Constitution says, “No Person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Acts of Congress in 1790 and 1795 clarify that “the children of citizens of the United States … shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

    Republican candidate John McCain faced, and overcame, similar questions because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his Navy father was stationed there.

    Hawaii was a state in 1961, when Obama was born. Any person born in the U.S. automatically is a “natural born citizen,” said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh.

    Even if a person is born outside the United States, courts have ruled any child born to at least one U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen, Volokh said. Stanley Ann Dunham would have counted even if Obama’s Kenyan father did not.

    If this becomes an issue in a post-election eligibility challenge, expect a likely sticking point to be the legal definition in 1961 of how parents could be called U.S. citizens for this purpose, Volokh said. At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

    Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country, Volokh said. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama.

    Any legal challenge would have to argue that Congress can’t make someone retroactively a citizen at birth, and prove Obama was born outside of the U.S. after all.

  12. Anonymous says:


    When you get a chance go to this website:

    They have a story and proof that Judge Surrick originally ruled in Berg’s favor that Barack Obama was an illegal alien, and to have him immediately removed from the ballot.

  13. Anonymous says:

    david, i dont know if you have read about this yet but here is a story i have come across and thought might peak your interest. By the way you are doing a great job man!

  14. Anonymous says:

    I dunno, christoph. Plenty of smart people around here that aren’t playing games with the facts. Plenty of good folks that just want to know what’s going on. Sometimes curiosity can make you look squirrelly. What’s stupid is to not face up to the questions at all.

    The questions are real, and the compulsively cryptic controlling Obama has left them unanswered; he hasn’t given interview for over a month.

    None of this would be happening if Obama would Man-up.

    This controversy would be long over if Obama would only do what John McCain has already done three times: offer up the vault copy of his certificate of live birth.

    Obama can’t. He’s not eligible for the office of POTUS until he does.

  15. Anonymous says:
  16. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Berg should be in a state court.

    The following quote is from a State of Hawaii Fact Sheet entitled: “The Petition Process to Place the Names of Candidates for President and Vice President on the State of Hawaii 2008 General Election Ballot:”

    “To run for United States President or United States Vice President, all candidates must be:

    A natural citizen of the United States (means natural-born citizen);…”

    In order for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of a qualified political party to appear on the Hawaii ballot, the party must have filed, 60 days prior to the general election, a sworn application with the chief election officer in the Office of Elections. The application shall include:

    “A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;…”

    If Obama is not a natural born citizen, then the Democratic Party has filed a false application with the State of Hawaii, under penalty of perjury, and their party’s 4 electors are ineligible to be elected to vote for him.

    If this is federal issue as Mr. Berg claims, then why does Hawaii have this legally qualified to serve application process for the presidential and vice presidential candidates? One application filed at the federal level would suffice for all 50 United States.

  17. dcomus says:

    Recent obomacrimes blog post:

    I just spoke to Phil and learned that there were about 30 people who showed up to support Phil, which I consider pretty good considering they had about 3 hours notice to show up.

    I want to send out a special thank you to Webster Tarpley who met Phil at the train, to Momma E who helped organize people get them out, and to Will Bower who has shown his support for our cause. I want to send out a special thank you to eveyone who has encourage Phil & Lisa, donated money to help Phil with the many expenses, your good wishes, prayers and support, your posts far and wide carrying this message about the importance of this action to save our Constitution and country from the worst terrible crisis in our history. Thanks to everyone from Phil, Lisa and me. This is one message where I know I can speak for them and not have to ask first.

    I have an interesting little anecdote to repeat. Phil had not eaten all day and happened to stop in some little sandwich shop where they were giving some sort of fundraiser for a fallen police officer. All these cops were chering and congratulating him on this legal action. A few people were having their pictures taken with Phil. I think it really overwhelmed him as he feels he is just doing the right thing for our country. I don't think he has really understood how much WE appreciate what he is doing for the future of our country. I think it was a very nice unexpected twist of validation for him.

    Phil tells me that others in addition to Fox News showed up. People who attended were videotaping and snapping pictures. There was a television film crew from Estonia (?) to film the event outside the Supreme Court.

    Next, I learned that as part of the appeal, Phil included the translated transcript of the taped interview of the Kenyan grandmother to support his allegations. I am very excited to read the transcript. I have never seen it yet. The filing will be posted tomorrow (Friday) with the attachments of evidence, etc.

    Keep monitoring this site for the new documents. I am also guessing that Fox will either use the interview tomorrow or this weekend. I'm sure no one wants it to get lost in the Halloween/Friday night events. Please help us post the news far and wide and get this important issue some good media coverage. Word is getting out, but we need more visibility this weekend – so please blog and post the URL as many places as you possibly can. Someone had an idea to make a couple of pages of numerous small strips of paper printed with the URL to hand out with the Halloween candy tomorrow night. When parent's check the candy, some will see it and check us out. I thought it was a smart idea.

  18. professor john schnitzal says:




  19. Anonymous says:

    I am embarrassed for you that you can not provide a substantive reason for such an accusation.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I wonder why Shepard Smith didn’t cover the Berg suit yesterday? I’ve seen him vehemently defend Obama, so it’s fair to question.

  21. Hywel says:

    Jeff – can you use Promissory Estoppel as a cause of action in US law? You can’t in english law (which is what I know) – “it is a shield not a sword”.

    Not really relevant to anything electoral but it would be an interesting thing to know (if one of limited use!)

  22. Koyaan says:

    Obama’s and the DNC’s response to Berg’s emergency motion seems to have revealed those involved in the “Granny” tape.

    From the response:

    Among other things, attached to the Emergency Motion are two affidavits, one from a “Bishop Ron McRae” and another from a “Reverend Kiori,” both executed after the District Court issued its decision.

    Ron McRae among other things is the director of the Street Preachers Fellowship.

    Here are some excerpts of a news item from their website:

    SPF Preachers Exhort
    The National Organization of Wackos, Witches & Whores

    WASHINGTON, D.C.- The Street Preachers’ Fellowship traveled again to the Nation’s capital to preach to the NOW Parade of rebellious women, made up of 250,000 witches, whores, wackos and weight lifters who failed at being women.

    And while 99% of all the pastors in and around the nation’s capital did nothing, 250,000 of the liberal swine of female rebellion paraded down the middle of the streets of D.C., cursing, swearing, taking God’s name in vain, stripping their clothes off, and routinely smelling up the nation’s capital with their filthiness, whoredom and rebellion.

    ‘Nuff said.


  23. Joab of Israel says:

    The USA constitution is the light of hope for the whole of humanity.
    Serve it well!

  24. Anonymous says:

    I love it, when moron republicans can’t win on policy they try this crap. Whats next. Obama is from Mars? No wait I know lets send the country into a tailspin over a bj?

  25. Anonymous says:

    Promissory estoppel can be a cause of action in the US, but it’s not gonna fly in a political case like this one.

    No court would ever enforce a campaign promise under promissory estoppel; if there was no way out, I imagine a court would say “That’s a political question, we can’t decide it.”

  26. Ladalang says:

    If we can’t protect our Constitution as ordinary citizens than who? This ruling tells me our Republic is no more. This judge needs to remember his oath!

  27. Anonymous says:

    “Any legal challenge would have to argue that Congress can’t make someone retroactively a citizen at birth”

    Easy… “NO EX POST FACTO LAW” (federal or state) READ the Constitution Obamabots!

  28. Anonymous says:

    “Any legal challenge would have to argue that Congress can’t make someone retroactively a citizen at birth”

    Easy… “No EX POST FACTO Law…”

    That’s BOTH federal and state!

    Read the Constitution!

  29. Anonymous says:

    THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED. GILL SCOTT HERON. You will not be able to stay home, brother.
    You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
    You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
    Skip out for beer during commercials,
    Because the revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be televised.
    The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox{FOXCNNABCNBCALALJAKLJAJ}
    In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
    The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
    blowing a bugle[Clinton playing a sax] and leading a charge by John
    Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
    hog jaws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be brought to you by the
    Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
    Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
    The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
    The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
    The revolution will not make you look five pounds
    thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

    There will be no pictures of you and Willie Mays
    pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
    or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
    NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
    or report from 29 districts.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
    brothers in the instant replay.
    There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
    brothers in the instant replay.
    There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
    run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
    There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
    Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
    Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
    For just the proper occasion.

    Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
    Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
    women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
    Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
    will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    There will be no highlights on the eleven o’clock
    news and no pictures of hairy armed women
    liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
    The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
    Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
    Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be right back after a message
    bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
    You will not have to worry about a dove in your
    bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
    The revolution will not go better with Coke.
    The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
    The revolution will put you in the driver’s seat.

    The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
    will not be televised, will not be televised.
    The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
    The revolution will be live.
    situation fubar…

Speak Your Mind