Posted on 04/10/2009 1:21:39 AM PDT by rxsid
PRESS RELEASE FROM PHILIP J. BERG RE: HOLLISTER
For Immediate Release: - 04/09/2009
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg states Hollister case has been ‘Appealed’ as Opinion is so ‘outrageous’ and Sanction imposed was ‘totally unfair’ Judge showed his total bias since case was filed We will be successful on Appeal ! Spread the word !
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 04/09209) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of Constitutional "qualifications/eligibility" to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al announced today that an Appeal has been filed in the Hollister case for several reasons.
Judge James Robertson showed his bias from the time the case was filed: 1) Berg and Joyce filed Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice and Judge Robertson stated he would hold in abeyance until we appeared in front of him ……….and then he would make a decision if we should be admitted…….; 2) Judge Robertson never scheduled a Hearing regarding our Motion Pro Hac Vice; 3) Judge Robertson was aware our local Washington, DC attorney, age 84, was not computer savvy; 4) Judge Robertson issued two [2] Orders, one [1] with two [2] days to respond and one [1] with one [1] day to respond, Motions that we responded to because others made us aware.
The decision by Judge Robertson in dismissing our case showed further his bias as he made statements that were totally untrue and no evidence thereof had been presented. Specifically, Judge Robertson stated how Obama’s citizenship has been “vetted, blogged, texted, twittered” during the two years of his campaign. This statement regarding Obama is so outrageous as Obama was never vetted or otherwise questioned.
Further, Judge Robertson keeps referring to Obama being “Native-born,” a new term in the efforts to justify Obama’s citizenship. The Constitution and all lawsuits attempting to discover the “truth” about Obama refer to the words in the Constitution, that being “Natural Born.”
Without testimony being presented, Judge Robertson decides our Interpleader case is “frivolous,” a decision that we completely differ with.
Judge Robertson refers to attorney Joyce and myself as “agents provocateurs.” I am honored by this designation because it shows that we are determined to expose the HOAX of Obama, the greatest HOAX upon the citizens of the United States in the history of our country, over 230 years.
The imposition of sanctions by way of a “Reprimand” to our local counsel, John D. Hemenway, Esquire was uncalled for and another attempt by Judge Robertson to stop the legitimate search for the truth about Obama’s citizenship. The following remarks by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway are right on point, “This is not a political issue – it is a legal issue and one of paramount national importance. Some question the wisdom of "undoing" an election if Obama's doubters are proven right. My father-in-law has lived through a World War, an actual impeachment and a President who was forced to resign under threat of impeachment – the nation survived, without chaos. The greatest danger to our freedom is disrespect for the Constitution and a President, who by his failure to provide evidence of his eligibility for the Presidency, evidently doesn't believe the rules should apply to him.”
Berg continued, “The Obama candidacy is the biggest "HOAX" perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office. I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama 'HOAX,' and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama 'HOAX,' that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally 'qualified/eligible' to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) 'Birth Certificate;' that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his 'adopted' name of 'Barry Soetoro' from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States."
Berg concluded, "I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in 'our' U.S.A., for 'our' forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President."
The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama's lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.
Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case - Quo Warranto [challenge person in office - that does not meet the qualifications].
As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue - having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention
Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Brief have been filed by all parties.
This is case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of "standing" by Philip J. Berg
This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court - where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.
Oral argument is scheduled for the end of May 2009.
Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama - must he obey an Order by legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a constitutionally ineligible/unqualified "Usurper" President.
Case was dismissed and Sanction of “Reprimand” imposed on our local attorney.
Appeal has been filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com
Charge On!
And then I just read that Alan Keyes is arranging a “million men “ march on DC. Together with the “tea parties” and the Tenth Amendment legislations in the State legislatures it sounds like the Good Ol’ USA is not going to give in to the “usurper” without a fight.
I believe, technically, all of them as none of them have 'run the full course' of appeals, etc. Even Leo Donofrio stated that if he really wanted to pursue the matter, his case isn't a done deal as he never appealed the lower court rulling and SCOTUS mearly declined to hear the emergency stay requests.
PING
Please tell me Berg, or their local D.C. lawyer will bring up how this judge thinks the “court of public opinion” should suffice as the location for deciding on evidence in what could be the most important case in our Nation’s History...
I know there are a lot more legal terms one could use, and have used in this press release — just that it’s a good “sound bite” to get out there to the masses. Most decent citizens I think still believe our court system has problems, but is generally in “good shape”. This could wake them up in a jiffy — just this ONE decision.
Berg is right. This particular judge’s comments ARE outrageous. I wonder if he did this on PURPOSE to give them standing in a higher court so he could “pass the buck”. Surely, even a liberal judge isn’t this stupid, are they? (Wait, don’t answer that... I know the answer... LOL)
The first time I read about this decision it gobsmacked me... Now I wonder if this particular judge just wanted his name OUT of it!
I have suspected this myself. He did not want to the be th one holding the hot potato (which will be an issue for alot of judges, especially ones wanting to be placed in a higher position by Obama), but didn’t want to throw it out completely because he knew there wasn’t a legal reason to.
Love Mr. Berg. He is showing the same spirit that the liberals do. Keep on going and do not take NO for an answer. I only wish more of the right wing party had that much tenacity.
How would the judges standing grant the defendent standing that they didn't have before?
Lame! Written like a 5th grader.
My wife is a paralegal. It makes NO difference how inept or how old an attorney is to her. If she is employed by them, it is her responsibility to perform any legal or technical duties required to further a case. And...knowing her way around a computer is one of those duties.
Americans have two choices.
We can cower in fear of being conspiracy theorists as these people dismantle America and shred the constitution. Or, we can stand tall and demand to know that Obama is legally able to hold office.
Those who think we will change anything in the next election are fooling themselves. The words and actions of the democrats are quite clear, they have no intent of EVER being a minority party again.
Acorn will ensure that the democrats never lose another election unless their fraud is exposed. The first step towards that goal must be exposing the candidate himself was a fraud from the start.
Then everything else will implode in a circular firing squad of finger pointing.
Because it’s a farcical “legal reason” to declare a case has no merit. It’s bold in it’s absolute disregard for common sense, much less any basis in LAW, or under ANY examination of process of law, or any POSSIBLE absolute credibility, could a judge — unless he needs to have charges filed against him and his license to practice law removed from him — possibly honestly rule that an issue of such importance as a Constitutional REQUIREMENT to insure the NATIONAL SECURITY of this Nation against HOSTILE enemies who would seek to destroy us from within (meaning those who completely and willfully disregard the rule of law, commit fraud upon the people as a whole, and systematically start imposing laws that fly in the FACE of the Constitution and destroy our country, and hurt our citizens)... Could POSSIBLY be “decided” in the court of public opinion. Especially when even the COPY of the Birth Certificate Obama DID provide he REFUSES to give to the courts to verify it’s authenticity. This judge took the word of the WEBMASTER of FACTCHECK, and a BLOGGER AT DAILY KOS, and TWITTERING, as his evidence in this case!
Therefore, he makes the decision SO outrageous that the appeals court basically HAS to listen to it and decide against him. In fact, Berg could probably argue that this judge needs to be relieved from making any more decisions on ANY case at all, frankly...
Maybe I’m totally wrong, but this seems too outrageous to be true... Then again, if you had told me yesterday that Obama had a Mad Scientist in the basement of the White House planning on sending up a rocket full of pollution to block the Sun’s light I probably would’ve thought you were crazy, too. :)
For the record, If Hussein was born by C section, is that natural born?
Thank you for that refreshing post. I have been begging the right to work together and organize to safe this country. In doing so, I’ve been called a collectivist, etc.
My only retort, before the Revolutionary War, Sam Adams and the “Sons of Liberty” along with others knew they had to have a “UNITED” front. Even with a rag tag army, the Colonist took a United Stand.
Until this type of Unity takes place and the righties are ever vigilant and resolute keeping a watch on the elected officials, groups like ACORN will continue to take elections for the left and gain control of our government. They are tenacious and the left never gives up.
Thanks. LOL
It’s funny ‘cause it’s true!!! heh heh
{well, that and it’s also scary....)
should have been “SAVE” not safe - my apologies
Shakespeare says no.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.