One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer, Berg is filing a motion in the Court in an attempt to further prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the United States.
From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts — in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 8, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.
“As I’ve said over and over and over again, we’re headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is qualified under the United States Constitution to be president,” Berg said.
“It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief,” he said, “that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials … which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them.”
The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to respond to Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however, are allowed two more days for mail service). On Wed., Nov. 19, the Federal Election Commission formally waived its right to respond to Berg’s petition and, while such waiver is not necessary, neither is any such response to a petition. Like the FEC, Obama and the DNC could essentially bank on the low odds that any one matter will be heard by the Court (only somewhere between 70 and 120 of the approximately 8,000 petitions are granted each year), or rely on arguments already made that Berg lacks standing to sue at all.
While he recognizes that Obama and the DNC were not obligated to file an answer, Berg believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity, stating that he “doesn’t expect them to respond” and that his opponents will likely “take a more cavalier approach that we lack standing.”
“If they were going to respond, I get the feeling that it would have been in there by now,” Berg said. “The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we’re successful. That’s why, in the lower court, they just relied on a motion to dismiss based on standing. Here, they may not want to file an actual, specific response in the Supreme Court for fear they’ll be held to it later.”
Despite relative inactivity in the courts over the past few weeks, Berg is happy with the efforts being taken by others to spread the word and “ensure that our Constitution is being upheld.” Berg said that it is “apparent that we have made some concrete breakthroughs in terms of taking our message and our arguments to the American people,” and indeed his challenge of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility, started with a simple complaint on August 21, 2008, has taken on a mind of its own. A full-page advertisement ran in the news section of yesterday’s Chicago Tribune, and will run again tomorrow. Another full-page ad ran last week in the Washington Times. Articles have been published online and otherwise by the Washington Post, MSNBC, The Christian Science Monitor, AOL News (today), and more.
“We’re finding that there is a great interest across the United States,” Berg said. “I’ve been on talk show after talk show, and the more the case is discussed, the more people are made aware of it and are disgusted by the fact that Obama just won’t simply produce the credentials showing he’s qualified. Hopefully, some authority will demand it.”
“This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against American citizens in the history of our nation,” he said. “When all is said and done, people should be held criminally responsible for this, people should go to jail for this. It’s just wrong, on so many levels.”
Check back later this week with a more detailed question-and-answer session with Philip Berg, likely covering everything from Andy Martin to purported death threats against other plaintiffs to the cases in general filed across the country.
For a full list and time-line of all materials surrounding the Berg case and others atAmerica’s Right, click HERE.