Skip to content

Phil Berg, fighting the good fight..needs your help!

January 1, 2009

He is asking you to write one letter, copy it, and send it to the Nine Supreme Court Justices..

Here’s how: PRESS RELEASE-12/30/08-

DETERMINED to have the TRUTH regarding OBAMA that he is NOT “NATURAL BORN” and therefore NOT constitutionally QUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT BERG files a lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL The lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA- Further, OBAMA is named as “BARRY SOETORO” as that is his “real” name when he was legally adopted in Indonesia.

Urgent – Write Letters to Supreme Court Justices

Case of Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences [January 9th and 16th, 2009].

The Justices of the Supreme Court will read letters sent to them. Let them know how important it is for them to hear our case; how “standing” is important on the issue of Obama’s qualifications; how we are headed for a “Constitutional crisis” if Obama’s qualifications are not resolved; how important it is to follow “our Constitution;” and how Obama’s records: his original ‘vault’ birth certificate, immigration records when he as Barry Soetoro [adopted in Indonesia] returned to Hawaii in 1971, if any, and any change of name Court records are necessary as Obama might be an illegal alien, not only not qualified to be President, but a fraud as U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Write one [1] letter to the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court (names are listed below), make nine [9] copies and put them in nine [9] separate envelopes, addressed to each Justice, and then place them into one [1] manila envelope and mail to:

U.S. Supreme Court
1 First Street, N.E
Washington, D.C. 20543

Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John Roberts

Associate Justices:

Samuel A. Alito
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
David H. Souter
John Paul Stevens
Stephen G. Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Note: Any communications received by the U.S. Supreme Court via e-mail or fax are thrown away. The U.S. Supreme Court will not take telephone messages for the Justices. All communications to the U.S. Supreme Court must be done in writing and sent to them by way of U.S. mail, UPS, Federal Express, etc.

FOR ANY MORE INFORMATION VISIT OBAMA CRIMES

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009 Everyone!

h/t to tpt/ny for the graphic:

About these ads
22 Comments
  1. January 1, 2009 10:04 am

    I have to give Phil Berg his due. He’s a fighter and he’s not giving up until the last card is played and the last grain of sand runs through the hour glass.

    If anyone thinks for a moment he’s doing this for the $$$ you’re off the mark. Phil has so much time, his own money and effort invested in this crusade, paying for office supplies and additional help all out of his own pocket.

    His request is a simple one… With today as a stay at home holiday, I am getting my letters ready for posting in tomorrow’s mail. Hopefully, you will do the same if you have a few extra minutes today and for the price of 9 stamps. Something may come of it!

  2. Ted permalink
    January 1, 2009 11:30 am

    Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

  3. January 1, 2009 11:45 am

    nice blog..very nice

  4. January 1, 2009 11:52 am

    Yes, Ted-

    If your scenario were to come true, it would be by a miracle. Biden would move up and be the president-elect and a new VP would need to be determined. afaik…

    The problem, as the SCOTUS has upheld the lower court ruling, IS “standing”.

    I researched back to the First Continental Convention and the methods used for crafting the formating for elections . At the time Justice Brearley was put in charge of National Security and his duties were to set the standard by which these things are determined.

    There is very little written publicly of how Brearley crafted the validation of the candidates and electors for the first electoral college.

    I suggested to Phil, he go to the Philly archives and search for Brearly’s papers. I found it odd, facts as important as the validation process for presidential candidates and electoral delegates were lacking internet access.

    In order to have standing, Berg has to draw power for ‘standing’ from wherever or whoever gave it to Brearley. imho-

  5. KatyLied permalink
    January 1, 2009 1:27 pm

    Ted — The citizenship status of BO’s father has nothing to do with it, either under the 14th Amendment, or US Title 8 or any other actual law or definition on the books. The resolution clarifying McCain’s citizenship has zero to say about it, either, even if it were a law rather than merely a resolution.

    The “both parents must be US citizens” claim is a complete fabrication, outside of a purely philosophical argument rendered in “The Law of Nations,” published in 1758. The Supreme Court has already denied both cases based on the unprovable “junk-law” assertion that James Madison et al. had that argument in mind when they drafted the 14th Amendment.

    After that, the rest of your scenario falls apart pretty quickly.

    We need documentary proof that BO was born in Kenya or that he surrendered his US citizenship when his parents moved to Indonesia. And so far there’s not a shred of evidence for that.

    Maybe Ed Hale has the goods, but his past record is pretty shaky. I’ll believe it when I see it.

  6. January 1, 2009 1:34 pm

    Actually, Katy, Phil has changed his approach to the citizenship issue. Rather than providing proof of his accusations, his lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA-

    Further, OBAMA is named as “BARRY SOETORO” as that is his “real” name when he was legally adopted in Indonesia.

    You can get up to speed at http://www.obamacrimes.com
    for Phil’s new approach

  7. tpt/ny permalink
    January 1, 2009 1:44 pm

    Did anyone see the new Globe headline questioning Obama’s birth status???
    Weren’t they (or 1 of those rags) “Right” about the Edwards thing??
    (?) http://www.globemagazine.com

  8. January 1, 2009 4:53 pm

    I’ll post the pic in the main post..

    thanks!

    Camilla, the poor dear, having to live with all that guilt of wrecking Princess Di’s life and depriving her children of their mother. I hope the next stairway is 60 ft long…

  9. Citizen Cane permalink
    January 1, 2009 7:55 pm

    ellurian wrote: “Actually, Katy, Phil has changed his approach to the citizenship issue. Rather than providing proof of his accusations, his lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA”

    ellurian, have you ever heard about the Onus Probandi guy? His middle name is “the necessity of proof lies with the one who complains”.

    You obviously can’t even imagine how pathetic this bright new approach is.

  10. January 1, 2009 10:21 pm

    Citizen Cane says:

    “ellurian, have you ever heard about the Onus Probandi guy? His middle name is “the necessity of proof lies with the one who complains”.

    You obviously can’t even imagine how pathetic this bright new approach is.

    Whats with the complaining? Berg is giving you a free education. You should be paying him.

    It’s what I love so much about the Constitution. The further back you go in time, remedys just seem to materialize from obscure places.

    wiki has a general explanation outlining how it gives a party of interest jurisdiction. (“standing”)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpleader

  11. Citizen Cane permalink
    January 2, 2009 2:39 am

    Ellurian, maybe I should pay Berg for amusing me… and anyone who knows anything about the legal matters.

    Demanding from the accused one to prove his innocence is a comedy gold – Onus Probandi is the core legal principle, an obligatory and irrevocable one. You can’t get more any more frivolous than that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

    Admin: Edited for offensive language.
    Warning.. offensive language will be enough to put your posts back into moderation before you will be allowed to see them.

  12. January 2, 2009 5:11 am

    Citizen Cane says:

    “maybe I should pay Berg for amusing me… and anyone who knows anything about the legal matters.”

    Well, let’s see… How many cases have you taken to court. How many of those cases have you won?

    ps.. Admin: edited out the vulgarities.. I know Phil Berg doesn’t have a problem with civility. Hopefully, you can broach that threshold sooner rather than later.

  13. Citizen Cane permalink
    January 2, 2009 1:58 pm

    @ admin: since when is “Jesus Christ!” a offensive language? These are the only two words deleted form my previous comment, I mean…

    @ ellurian: why should it be relevant how many cases I’ve taken to court and won? I haven’t filed a lawsuit against Obama, Berg has.

    … as he has filed it against Bush, with exactly the same outcome as this time.

  14. January 2, 2009 6:48 pm

    I have an idea. Let’s just wish Mr Berg well and hopefully Obama will comply and provide the court with a valid Certificate of Live Birth proving he was born in Hawaii and this case can be disposed of ..
    post haste.

  15. January 7, 2009 6:10 pm

    Why bombard the Supreme Court with letters? How is that supposed to sway them to your cause?

    Has it ever occurred to you that such actions will, instead, persuade them against you? The Supreme Court does not have a correspondence management system similar to those Members of Congress use. Swamping the Court’s business office is not a good idea, if you want to persuade them.

    Making a case would be a good idea. I gather from the plea for letters that it has been impossible to make a case against Obama?

  16. January 7, 2009 6:22 pm

    Ed,

    If this was a popularity contest where citizens need to tippy toe around Justices of the Court that have sworn to uphold the Constitution would be one thing- It’s not!

    The Justices are viewing the Constitution from the Federalist bent not from the Constitutional consideration it was written for….the health and welfare of the People and the Public good.

    “I gather from the plea for letters that it has been impossible to make a case against Obama?”

    The effect of writing letters is a right of the public to express either their support for the current response from the Justices or a rebuke of their current determinations. It has nothing to do with making the case against Obama. That is Berg’s dilemma to deal with. He has restructured his position.

    If you’d like more information on his change of tack.. you can read up at http://www.obamacrimes.com

  17. January 7, 2009 11:57 pm

    No, law isn’t a popularity contest. I didn’t suggest that anyone “tippy toe” anything. All I wondered was why this counterproductive tactic. What possible good could it accomplish?

    If Berg had the facts, or the law, on his side, he’d win. He has neither. Postcards and letters deluging the Court won’t change those circumstances.

    No one has ever ruled, no law has ever said, that a native-born kid is not a natural born citizen as required by Article II. The bizarre claim that Obama is somehow special under the law, that his having a foreign citizen father changes the law, lacks any precedent in its favor, but has several opposed.

    Absent some spectacular evidence that Mr. Berg has not yet demonstrated, the case is probably doomed.

    Cards and letters to the Court cannot change that. Evidence could, but I gather Berg and you and everyone else has given up on finding the evidence.

  18. January 8, 2009 1:00 am

    “If Berg had the facts, or the law, on his side, he’d win.”

    You’re not understanding how the law works. The court maintains Berg doesn’t have the standing to compel Obama to produce his birth certificate. That is the issue before the court.

    He’s restructured his case in a way he can compel Obama to prove his identity and his place of birth.

    The letters and cards demonstrate to the court, people haven’t forgotten or swept this issue under the rug and expect an answer.

    The fact of the matter is- seeing that Obama hasn’t been forthcoming with a valid vault certified bc a cloud of illegitimacy will follow him after the inauguration.

    Eventually, Berg or someone else will crack this nut and Obama will have to produce a certificate proving he is a Natural Born Citizen. Nothing will change until it’s been done. So, don’t expect this issue is going to go away anytime soon.

  19. January 8, 2009 7:37 am

    You’re not understanding how the law works. The court maintains Berg doesn’t have the standing to compel Obama to produce his birth certificate. That is the issue before the court.

    You’re not a veteran court watcher, and can you tell me again which law school you graduated from?

    Standing issues tend to go away when there is a legitimate controversy of some importance, or if the issue just begs for a decision. To get to that point in this case, there would have to be extraordinary evidence from the anti-Obama side — say, solid documentation of a foreign birth (certificates, affidavits from witnesses). None of those. Or, there would have to have been a precedent in law where a natural born U.S. citizen was declared not natural born for some reason. Also none of those.

    Standing is how the Court says, “this is a case brought by lunatics; we have to give it due process, but we don’t have to give it any more credence than it merits.”

    He’s restructured his case in a way he can compel Obama to prove his identity and his place of birth.

    Wrong restructuring. As I’ve detailed at my blog, there are at least six, solid and solidly legal demonstrations by Obama that his identity is clean and clear. Obama doesn’t have to prove anything at this point. There are rebuttable presumptions that he is who he says he is. In order to get into court, Berg must overcome at least one of those rebuttable presumptions — but that takes evidence that he doesn’t have.

    Obama wins. Thinking that putting the burden on Obama would be a winnable strategy is a losing course.

    The letters and cards demonstrate to the court, people haven’t forgotten or swept this issue under the rug and expect an answer.

    That’s rarely a concern of the Court, even when it acts politically. The letters clog up the clerk’s office and make it difficult for the Court to do its work.

    The answer has already been given (Obama’s birth certificate has been on line since June, he’s wrote a best-selling book about his early life many years ago). Obama’s made his case. Berg hasn’t made a counter case.

    The fact of the matter is- seeing that Obama hasn’t been forthcoming with a valid vault certified bc a cloud of illegitimacy will follow him after the inauguration.

    Obama put his legal, certified-as-correct-by-the-state-of-Hawaii certificate on line last June, seven months ago. The State Department accepted it. The State Bar of Illinois accepted it. The FBI, CIA and Homeland Security investigated it and accepted it.

    In the face of an official document which the Constitution requires be recognized by everyone else in the U.S. (see the full faith and credit clause), and in the face of the history of Obama’s declarations of who he is having been accepted by so many agencies, Berg must demonstrate why those agencies were in error, with extraordinary evidence.

    Post cards and letters were good enough for Dean Martin, but not for John Roberts. If you’re not serious about making a case — and I wonder whether you or Berg or anyone else is thinking strategically about what it would take to make a case to just get into the courtroom, let alone win — cards and letters only distract from the real work.

    Keep those cards and letters going. They make Berg’s case look stunningly and glaringly like the tinfoil hat refuge many of us suspected it was from the start.

  20. January 8, 2009 9:59 am

    Stunning- Ed!
    your rebuttal is full of inaccuracies, omissions and plain wishful thinking. Apparently, you chose not to read http://www.obamacrimes.com for fear it will dispel the supersonic script you’ve been pushing refuting Berg’s work because it threatens your incredible inane propaganda.

    Ed, let’s be frank. You are a hired operative. One of the 400 bloggers hired to continue carrying water for the lie. (I checked out your website for confirmation)

    We’re done here!

Trackbacks

  1. Phil Berg, fighting the good fight..needs your help!
  2. And cheese could be improved by making it a stapler! « Motivated Grammar

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: