Posted on 01/26/2009 6:11:23 PM PST by Calpernia
Advisory from Philip J. Berg, Esquire:
Re: Obama - "not" natural born - "not" qualified to be President
Attached is Press Release detailing:
U.S. Supreme Court denies Injunction request by Berg, case still alive in 3rd Circuit; GLOBE Magazine of 2/2/09 highlights Obama not being "qualified;" and Berg states he has 3 open cases and will continue to prove Obama ineligible.
Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340 Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the ______________ Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-0225 Response to Hollister Complaint due 1/26/09 by Soetoro/Obama and Biden
Call (610) 662-3005 to schedule interviews or Fax to (610) 834-7659 or E-mail to philjberg@gmail.com
Obama was still an Elected official (Senator) until he resigned on Nov 15. An important note is Nov 15 to Jan 8, Obama was “just Mr. Obama.” Obama became President-Elect on Jan 8, recognized by the 20th Amendment. However, because of the compressed timeline, there was probably not enough time to complete an investigation by Jan. 7...
But if Berg filed the document on 11/7 isn’t that when the status of Senator would be considered not on 11/15.
Well anyway hope you are right and Obama gets served. Of course now he is (p)resident and does he get served?
Thank you for update.
We all have power. Just use it.
List of US Attorneys Offices for information regarding crimes committed during the 2008 Election:
http://defendourfreedoms.org/usattorneys.html
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/us-attorneys-offices-for-you-to-visit.html
Any explanations “for Dummies” welcome.
-—Any explanations “for Dummies” welcome.-—
I’m a new member here but have been following this “situation” since last June. I must admit that sometimes I am really confused by some of these posts. Glad I’m not the only one.
I feel no shame in saying:
???? I need the “SCOTUS cases for Dummies”, please!
Thank you!
“Orley needs to place the burden where it belongs on bo and the DNC.”
If there has been fraud, I believe they are in on it. But it makes me nervous for the future, to have the DNC and RNC be responsible for vetting their own candidates. I hope in the future it is a more bipartisan or neutral agency which would be responsible for vetting. Preferrably before the candidate is even allowed on the ballot. The general election is too late, IMO.
A Call for a few Good Men & Women to Unite for Our Country
To find standing the Court need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.
Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?
“We the people” in this cause assert that anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.
Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.
When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution? “We the People” contend that he is bound immediately, upon the taking of the Oath. In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.
As in the cause of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), “We the People” seek fullfillment of our executory contract, our Constitution, by way of a Writ of Mandamus upon the executor by oath of said contract, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama.
As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.”
Thus, Barack Hussein Obama, having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law, in this case the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
It is stated in United States v. Butterworth, 18 S. Ct. 441, 169 U.S. 600 at 602 (1898),
The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a duty resting upon the person to whom the writ is sent. That duty may have originated in one way or in another. It may, as alleged in the present case, have arisen from the acceptance of an office which has imposed the duty upon its incumbent. But no matter out of what fact or relations the duty has grown, what the law requires, and what it seeks to enforce by a writ of mandamus, is the personal obligation of the individual to whom it addresses the writ.”
Following much good faith research regarding the issue of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the United States, “We the People” have found no cases in the history of jurisprudence of the United States of America wherein a Defendant disputed the Constitutional fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” as plainly stated in the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2.
That being the case, “We the People” respectfully request that the Barack Hussein Obama stipulate to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; or, in the alternative, that Barack Hussein Obama show good cause why the Supreme Court of the United States shall not have original jurisdiction over our cause.
A Call for a few Good Men & Women to Unite for Our Country
To find standing the Court need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.
Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?
“We the people” in this cause assert that anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.
Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.
When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution? “We the People” contend that he is bound immediately, upon the taking of the Oath. In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.
As in the cause of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), “We the People” seek fullfillment of our executory contract, our Constitution, by way of a Writ of Mandamus upon the executor by oath of said contract, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama.
As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.”
Thus, Barack Hussein Obama, having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law, in this case the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
It is stated in United States v. Butterworth, 18 S. Ct. 441, 169 U.S. 600 at 602 (1898),
The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a duty resting upon the person to whom the writ is sent. That duty may have originated in one way or in another. It may, as alleged in the present case, have arisen from the acceptance of an office which has imposed the duty upon its incumbent. But no matter out of what fact or relations the duty has grown, what the law requires, and what it seeks to enforce by a writ of mandamus, is the personal obligation of the individual to whom it addresses the writ.”
Following much good faith research regarding the issue of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the United States, “We the People” have found no cases in the history of jurisprudence of the United States of America wherein a Defendant disputed the Constitutional fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” as plainly stated in the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2.
That being the case, “We the People” respectfully request that the Barack Hussein Obama stipulate to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; or, in the alternative, that Barack Hussein Obama show good cause why the Supreme Court of the United States shall not have original jurisdiction over our cause.
After some analysis, some have figured out the cases causing Standing problem and are re-filing appropriately. Suffice to say, previous court rulings are flawed, IMO, but that's a legal battle saved for later to overturn them.
So, that's why there are different approaches to circumvent badly-judged Election cases.
It's not because the plaintiff in the cases have been unable to show harm -- but let's say, for arguments sake, not demonstrating DAMAGE had been a problem ...
Any of Berg's cases have a good chance of exposing the truth, but I personally like his case that is still sealed (discussed above):
This interesting point from ObamaCrimes:
... the sealed case is a type of criminal case known as a “Qui Tam” case and, by law, is required to be filed under seal.
“In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning “[he] who sues in this matter for the king as [well as] for himself.”
The writ fell into disuse in England and Wales following the Common Informers Act 1951 but, as of 2008, remains current in the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., which allows for a private individual, or “whistleblower”, with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the U.S. federal government to bring suit on its behalf. This provision allows a private person, known as a “relator”, to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant’s conduct. The information must not be public knowledge.”
Dad had some question about the last sentence in quotes. Does the qualification of "not be public knowledge" apply to the BC? Will you explain that sentence a bit more.
Not sure if you have seen this. Just a little history on using the military for standing.
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.