With Supreme Court Conference Looming, a Q&A with Philip Berg

America's Right ^ | 1/5/2009 | Jeff Schreiber

[Hang'emAll]

At approximately 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2008, I was in the Clerk of Court's office in the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia doing part of my job as a legal writer and reading the civil cases which had been filed that day. (Snip)

After the man left, the clerk told me that I should probably take a look at the complaint. (Snip)

You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama. Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. Ee sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since. (snip)

Okay. Back to the case.(Snip)

Do you think the scheduling is because Justice Scalia knows more about three of his colleagues than he lets on, and things that they’ll grant cert on Friday, or do you think that they’re merely putting all aspects of this case through the progressions so as to ward off future actions?

I don’t know. It could be either. It certainly is interesting. Two conferences make it unique. The order of the docket entries kind of makes it unique.

By scheduling the injunction for a week after the petition, does that mean that they are considering the injunction ahead of time? (Snip)

[freepersup]

>>> Dr Orly Taitz has paperwork in the SCOTUS pipeline too. <<<

No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.

[bronxboy]

What is the case about...birth certificate or natural born?

[mickie]

Berg said last night on the Billy Cunningham show that although you cannot email them, the SCOTUS do read all of their mail.
He said to go to his web page to get the letter to send to all the justices, each letter addressed to one of the SCOTUS and put all the letters in a manila envelope and mail it to them for $2.
All the addresses are on his site......but I cannot remember what that address is.
Anyone else know it?

[Arthur McGowan]

I think you’re right. She realized that if she knocked out Obama by exposing him, blacks and the far Left would stay home. Since she had a solid, solid 50% who would NEVER vote for her, she would have had no chance of beating McCain without blacks and the hard Left. As it was, look how they trashed her just for staying in the race.

It’s hard to see how she could profit now by exposing 0bama, but easy to see how she could be profiting by blackmailing him, and how she can profit as Sec’y of State. She and Bill will be billionaires in a few years.

[waxer1]

“People in the upper echelons know that we’re right. Obama has been vetted by the FBI and the Secret Service and other agencies responsible for that sort of thing. We have that information from people overseas. He’s been vetted, and those agencies, those people in the upper echelons know the truth.”

I know this is true. A lot of my clients are in the military and are in a position to know. Obama’s eligibility is very much on thier minds. When I asked if they know about his citizenship issue, they just look at me and say, yes, we know the truth. That is all that they will say.

It was the same with John Kerry, they vetted him too and found out that the Swiftboat vets were right on.

[freepersup]

Both! The California SOS has failed to verify the eligibility of Obama, claims Taitz.

Years ago, Eldridge Cleaver was determined to be ineligible for the office he sought, by the CA. SOS, due to the age requirements, when he ran for President. The SCOTUS agreed.

[EBH]

Unless there are huge protests on the steps of the Supreme Court, 0bama will be sworn in.

I may get flamed for saying this, but if this is truly a constitutional crisis, as many profess belief it is, then they would be on the steps of the court in protest demanding the issue be properly vetted and heard.

[freepersup]

Here’s another interesting case working it’s way (possibly) to the SCOTUS. Chris Strunk has requested, by way of the FOIA, records on Obama from the US Dept. of State, and the US Dept. of Homeland Security. The case is at the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Both departments have IGNORED the FOIA requests by Strunk.

http://therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/amended_verified_complaint_and_petition_in_re_foia_usdc_.pdf

[LonePalm]

She would have lost the black voters and Obama voters.

Worse that that, she might have permanently ripped apart the fragile coalition of interests that is the Democrat Party.

If even a quarter of the blacks vote Republican, you get nationwide landslides for the Republicans. It's that close.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[bronxboy]

I don’t buy this about Hillary... she had to be forced to give up...if this info is true, she would have certainly pursued it. I still think that this is going nowhere.

[mcshot]

We’ll just have to consider him a “usurper” and go about our business of protecting our families until he’s ACORNED out - if that’s possible.

[nominal]

Here’s what I think is a mostly complete list of cases:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

Berg has another case on behalf of a retired military Colonel that uses interpleader to shift the burden of proof onto Obama. http://www.obamacrimes.com

Pidgeons’ Broe vs Reed lawsuit has standing because of a unique statute in Washington state.

[bronxboy]

I have been looking at this via google. It seems to me the Supremes may have taken the case only to get rid of similar cases...if they were going to grant an injunction, they would have done so long before now. Also, why January 9th-after Congress opens the electoral votes? Another point, I read on Orley Taitz blog that the divorce decree does not indicate Obama was born in Kenya...but has some sort of ‘recollection by an un-named person. Never trust ‘Ed’. Wasn’t he involved in the Whitey tape? It seems to me that Berg is raking in the cash (donations) while pursuing this matter. I will look at your links now.

[DrC]

“It would be hi-freakin-larious if after all this time, after all the manipulations and evasions by the Obamunist camp, that Barry Soetoro is disqualified from becoming President because he ran under a false name, and under false pretenses.”

The problem is, anyone can change their name simply by consistently using a different name, so long as this is not done for a fraudulent purpose: “The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one’s name at will, by common law, is clearly one’s constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change

Thus, the fact that Berg is raising this bogus claim raises doubts in my mind about whether his other legal claims are legitimately established or just populist talking points that sound good but lack validity.

[nominal]

That date is one day after Congress deals with the electoral votes. If Congress does the right thing and disqualifies Obama, the cases might no longer have merit or be withdrawn. Standing, after the 8th, probably also changes, because only at that point does Obama become president-elect (unlike what he and the press have been implying).

I have my doubts about Ed’s reliability as well, but if he can somehow get some documentation from a port of entry, that would be interesting to see, whatever it shows. It’s not a big deal as of yet. I think they were talking about a FOIA request? I don’t think that will work. But that will probably drag out for a while, so we have to wait and see...

Berg is losing money and his law firm is suffering as a result of him being involved in this, so far as I can see. Maybe we should donate a few bucks.

[nominal]

Are you talking about the “open and notorious” name change stuff?

Also, “In California the usage method (changing it at will under common law) is sufficient to change one’s name. Although it is federal law to allow this, it is not followed in all states.”

I suppose which states’ statutes would Obama have had to follow, and would that apply to other states he’d moved to is what we need to find out.

[mkjessup]

Considering the extent that Barry Soetoro, or Barack Obama, or Barry Dunham, or whatever-the-Hell-his-name-is, has gone to in order to conceal the details of his birth, his schooling, his upbringing, etc., nobody can seriously suggest that he changed his name for innocent purposes.

As far as Berg is concerned, at least he’s trying to do something about this. Anyone can be a critic, but it takes somebody like Berg to actually step up to the plate, and he’s doing that.

[DrC]

“nobody can seriously suggest that he changed his name for innocent purposes.

The issue is whether he did it for fraudulent purposes. He’s been using “Barack Obama” for decades and was in no way inhibited about using his other names in his 2 books. So while deliberately concealing his BC and other documents may NOW have a fraudulent purpose of serving as POTUS when he is constitutionally eligible, his filing as Barack Obama rather than Barry Soetero doesn’t constitute an illegal (i.e., fraudulent) act.

As for Berg, kudos to him. All I’m saying is that IMHO he erodes his credibility whenever he includes easily refuted bogus arguments among claims that might otherwise have much more solid legal grounding. In contrast—leaving aside what you might think of the merits of Donofrio’s legal claim, it was simple and consistent. He never gave the appearance of trying to throw everything he could at Obama and hoping something would stick. In my view, it really doesn’t help matters that Berg is a 9-11 conspiracy nut. That alone isn’t reason to dismiss him, but it creates a steeper hill for neutral observers to climb to overcome skepticism that Berg isn’t just doing this for notoriety/money etc. rather than a genuine belief in his legal claims. Again, Donofrio may be a bad comparison, but he always appeared to me to be more intellectually attached to his position than Berg ever has.

[DrC]

“I suppose which states’ statutes would Obama have had to follow, and would that apply to other states he’d moved to is what we need to find out.”

No, this is missing my point. States CAN have different procedures/rules for “official” name changes, but as a matter of constitutional right, anyone can change their name at will:

“The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one’s name at will, by common law, is clearly one’s constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change

But as a practical matter, one might be forced to resort to a formal name change “by the book” in instances that businesses or others refuse to recognize your new name:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/5/objectId/7C7FA175-7305-4E94-8D24DB5866EEE3CB/catId/211754E8-4167-4E64-9EABA23C9510DE4F/118/121/FAQ/

My interpretation is that in the above instance, one could technically FORCE a business to accept a name change on constitutional grounds, but pragmatically, it is far cheaper to simply follow the legal route.

[nominal]

yeah, maybe you’re right..

But whatever, the case isn’t about his name change and the legality of it. In the context of interpleader, the case is about a retired Colonel having to follow the orders of a CIC who is not eligible to be president. The interpleader is an attempt to get him to provide proof.

http://www.obamacrimes.info/Copy%20of%20ComplaintSoetoroInterpleader122708.pdf

I see a potential problem with something else in his case, but I’ve other things to look into at the moment. I’m sure a lawyer would have a better view on it, in a any event.