Links in “Berg v. Obama”
-
Berg v. Obama: Subpoena Served on Kenyan Consulate General
According to the Repubx blog (a hat-tip to TheObamaFile.com as well), Philip Berg, Plaintiff and attorney in Berg v. Obama, along with criminal investigator Paul Andrew Mitchell, officially served the following subpoena with the Kenyan Consulate General in Los Angeles, CA.
The document shows that it was received on September 9, 2009 and Messrs. Berg and Mitchell expect a response by October 15, assuming that the Consulate doesn’t make a motion to quash:
.jpg)
.jpg)
The RepubX posting includes the delivery instructions for the above.
Here is Mr. Mitchell’s Notice of Intent to Serve:
TO: Hon. M. Nyambura Kamau
Consul General
Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles
Park Mile Plaza, Mezzanine Floor
4801 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 90010
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
DATE: August 2, 2009 A.D.
SUBJECT: intervention by United States ex rel. in
Berg v. Obama et al., Third Circuit Appeal No. 08-4443
Greetings Honorable Consul General:
My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
Please be advised that newly found evidence renders it appropriate formally to serve your good offices with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, duly issued by the District Court of the United States for the Central District of California.
The purpose of this SUBPOENA will be to command your good offices to produce and permit inspection and copying of an authentic original of the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 A.D., at Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa, Republic of Kenya.
Please be aware that there is a separate District Court proceeding presently underway in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which also seeks to compel authentication of said REGISTRATION OF BIRTH: Keyes et al. v. Obama et al., case number 8:09-cv-82 (USDC, Los Angeles, California, USA).
For your convenience, we believe this is a valid link to a true and correct copy of the latest MOTION filed and served in the latter case:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/kenyan-birth-motion-to-expedite-authentication.htm
Thank you very much for your timely and professional consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
As the Notice says, this subpoena was sent to the Kenyan Consulate in response to Mr. Lucas Smith’s affidavit regarding the alleged Kenya Birth Certificate. It is interesting to note that, should the subpoena be duly acted upon, there could be a response confirming or denying the legitimacy of the birth certificate, or there could be a response that no such document exists. And, depending on the latter response, that could then mean that either the birth certificate isn’t legitimate or that Mr. Obama was not, in fact, born in Kenya.
I will again reiterate that retreiving a copy of Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate is only one major aspect of the eligibility saga. The other aspect is his already-admitted Kenyan/British citizenship at birth.
Now, if only we could see a receipt of the transaction that produced the alleged Hawaiian COLB!
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
-
Berg v. Obama, Lightfoot v. Bowen, Brockhausen v. Andrade: Decisions and Hearings
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphases mine]
Regardless of what any Supreme Court Justice, President, Representative or Senator does or says, we see a “beyond the shadow of a doubt” guarantee that no law in America shall keep the concerned citizen from being able to petition a case in which they have reason to believe that the same government — tasked with upholding all tenets of this document — is overlooking even the smallest part thereof. In the case of the President-Elect’s eligibility, the question of his credentials is always an open one; if by no other grouping of citizens, then certainly by we, the People.
I have heard much opposition on this blog and many other places across the blogosphere and in the media (where it’s actually a consideration) that the mere questioning of a politician’s eligibility for the office of the presidency is met with rank disdain, in almost taboo fashion. I have to wonder: what’s the fear in asking questions? Is this not a classically liberal proposition? Are we not all to hold those who govern us accountable to — at the very least — the basic, fundamental document that is our highest law of the land? To wit…
We await judicial action on the following dates:
- Wednesday, January 21: The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition of Berg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page.
- Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hear Brockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elect’s eligibility.
- Friday, January 23: Dr. Orly Taitz‘ case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, goes to Conference, essentially asking the Justices for an emergency stay to keep California’s Electoral College Electors from voting. If the Justices make a decision on this day, the Orders would likely be released between 2 and 3pm ET. This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs include an Elector and a candidate for the vice presidency; theoretically, these two classes of citizens could overcome the standing hurdle.
- The docket officially shows that Dr. Taitz’ suggestion for all Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from being involved with the President-Elect’s inauguration has been received.
Other noteworthy links include the following:
- Congratulations to Dr. Orly Taitz for becoming both a member of the Bar and an officer of the United States Supreme Court.
- Excellent letter to the editor of the Washington Times questioning (gasp!) the President-Elect’s eligibility.
- UbiReVera blog similarly believes eligibility is certainly not a frivolous issue.
- As RedState points out, isn’t the incoming Administration at least going to vet its inaugural religious leader invite list for Ingrid Mattson, who is suspected of ties to Hamas?
- Maybe you, too, can get free LASIK surgery if you’re similarly named, “Barack Hussein Obama!” It’ll require a birth certificate though!
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here; currently known State-based electoral reform initiatives can be found here.
-Phil
-
Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Writ of Certiorari "Before Judgment"
According to today’s Orders, Berg v. Obama (Phil Berg, Plaintiff) has been denied a writ of Certiorari:
08-570 BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.
The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as
amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari
before judgment is denied.
Update: Here’s Philip Berg’s official presser on this action.
Update: Fascinating comment over at InvestigatingObama on the amicus curiae briefing.
Update: The following are two very astute comments from a couple of readers of my blog. I’ll post them here instead of in the commentary section:
From “Biz:”
URGENT From Lisa regarding Today’s SCOTUS rulingwritten by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009
Here is a very brief explanation of what today’s ruling means to us…
What today’s ruling means is that WE’RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama – in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn’t resolved.
If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won’t be sworn in. We jsut don’t know what might happen next.In the meantime, Bill Anderson’s motion for “permission” to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.
WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!
Phil is putting together a press release to be posted today on obamacrimes.com.
I’ll certainly be watching for that follow-up presser.
From “Scott:”
I believe the phrase “before judgment” means that the Supreme Court does not want to grant the writ before the matter is decided by the Third Circuit. Seehttp://www.anusha.com/no-cert.htm. After there is a Third Circuit opinion, and if it is unfavorable, Berg can seek another writ and Bill Anderson may file a brief as amicus curiae (his request was granted). This is the first of the Obama ineligibility cases to receive a comment from the Supreme Court, which could be seen as a positive development.The more “official word” from Jeff:
Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee, filed on August 21, 2008 and first reported here at America’s Right, questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution–which requires in part that the president be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States–and was previously dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from District Court in Philadelphia. While the Supreme Court’s denial of Berg’s petition for certiorari today was not accompanied by explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least six Justices agreed with Surrick’s determination that Berg lacked standing to sue. …
Berg’s case was dismissed at the district court level by Judge Surrick primarily for lack of standing, a procedural check required by the Case or Controversy Clause in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution as an effort to foster judicial efficacy and limit access to a court of law to those plaintiffs who can show a sufficient “stake” in a particular controversy. To prove standing and thus be eligible to bring suit, a plaintiff must show (1) a particularized–rather than generalized–injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that “regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.” …
Though the order list released by the Supreme Court today provides no reason for its denial of certiorari, such a denial inevitably is an affirmation of the district court judge’s assertion that Berg’s claim, as a mere voter, was far too generalized to satisfy the Case and Controversy Clause of the same Constitution he was attempting to uphold. Whether or not the Justices considered the factual elements of Berg’s allegations, without insight gleaned from a rare dissent to a denial of certiorari, is indeed another question left unanswered.
Either way, Berg says that this isn’t a fight which he’ll give up easily. This issue, he maintains, transcends politics and even transcends individual political candidates. Yes, Barack Obama is the focal point, but it’s a matter of upholding the Constitution, he says, of taking into account the intentions of America’s founders, men who at the time were still licking their wounds from bitter warfare and were understandably intensely concerned with the need for the highest office in the country to be held by someone fiercely and unequivocally loyal to the fledgling nation. It is for this reason–along, of course, with the “brazen” perpetration of what he repeatedly calls an “enormous hoax”–that Berg says he is so disappointed with the today’s news from the Supreme Court; it is for this reason, Berg says, that he wants “to continue standing firm for 320 million Americans.”
That continued fight, Berg says, involves an active case currently under seal, as well as a case filed last month on behalf of a retired Air Force colonel, both questioning Obama’s eligbility to serve as president of the United States and both centering on the documentation sought in the original action. According to Berg, the plaintiff in the latter case–Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a 20-year veteran with his own litigious history– filed suit out of concern that, should he be returned from his reserve status to active duty in this tumultuous global climate, his own Oath of Enlistment could conflict with his duty to follow lawful orders.
“If he’s reactivated, Col. Hollister comes under a duty to obey lawful orders,” Berg said. “The thing is, he’s confused because he won’t know if the orders that make their way down the chain of command have come from a Commander-in-Chief who is constitutionally eligible to serve in that position and give orders in the first place.”
The two other lawsuits, the case filed under seal citing Obama’s violations of the False Claims Act as well as the interpleader action filed on behalf of Hollister, are part of what Berg calls a “commitment to finding the truth about Obama for the sake of our Constitution and country,” an effort which started with the “hope that the Democratic Party would have done the right thing at its convention in August” and reached its peak today with news from our nation’s highest court of law.
“Today was a big setback,” Berg said, “but sooner or later, I’m confident that we can find the proper legal avenue to expose the truth about this unbelievable hoax, this circle of lies which has been thrust upon the American people. Barack Obama has lied to all of us, and he needs to be held responsible for doing so. More importantly, we all need to know that our Constitution still controls, that the president of the United States is constitutionally qualified to be there.”
Mr. Berg has another shot at Conference this Friday, where the Court will consider whether or not to (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of that vote.
More updates as time permits me to do so.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
-
Berg v. Obama: A Second Conference Scheduled
The docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar) for Plaintiff Philip J. Berg’s case, Berg v. Obama, now shows the following update:
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court. Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. Jeff Schreiber at AmericasRight.com has his perspective on this update:
[T]he application for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for certiorari has been “referred to the Court” by Justice Antonin Scalia, with a conference scheduled for Friday, January 16, 2009.
“I’m certainly encouraged,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m encouraged because it is still there.”
If the application for injunction truly is to be considered in conference by all nine Supreme Court Justices, it took a roundabout way to get there. It was filed and denied by Justice David Souter and refiled and once again denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy before making its way to Scalia’s lap.
Jeff goes on to discuss exactly what Berg is asking for in his suit (the injunction asked either (1) for a stay of the electoral college vote on December 15, 2008 or (2) for a stay of the counting of the votes on January 8, 2009) and some reasoning behind why the Justices are handling this case in the way in which they have.
In the meantime, the underlying petition for certiorari is scheduled for conference on Friday, January 9, 2009, and Berg seems to think that the selection of the date for conference could have something to do with the electoral votes being counted the day before.
“Until January 8, Obama is really nothing. He’s president-elect in name only, technically, until those votes are counted,” Berg said. “Seeing that we got to the Supreme Court before the other cases and are only now going to see conference weeks after they did, perhaps the timing is significant. I don’t know.”
My take follows…
On December 15, Berg refiled his case with Associate Justice Kennedy. The case was then distributed (presumably by Kennedy?) on December 17 for Conference of January 9, 2009. Yet, on the same day, Kennedy denied the case. So Berg resubmits to Associate Justice Scalia on December 18 who then presumably refers it to the full Court on December 23 for Conference of January 16.
Obviously there’s a whole lot of movin’ and shakin’ goin’ on here. While I don’t know enough of the logistics of how the Court operates to fully explain and subsequently understand these actions, Jeff (who has the legal education here) seems to think that January 9 is “for sure.” It’s the January 16 date that I’m not sure about.
I’ll go on record as disagreeing with Jeff, however, on the “round-about way to get there.” That is, he suggests that maybe the Justices are simply taking on these various cases under the auspices that denying the cases will effectively send the signal that they would go away, as it were. However, that’s irrational, in my opinion, for a few reasons:
- Any and all Justices grant or deny hearings for writ of certiorari at their pleasure; if they really didn’t want to hear the case, they could simply deny them
- Denying a writ of certiorari does not set precedent; rather, it simply means that a lower court’s ruling holds
- The foregoing would suggest that the Justices take almost every case that comes to their doorstep, send it to Conference, only to turn around and deny in hopes that “someone is watching” (for lack of a better phrase) and will subsequently stop referrals
I could also be all wet on this and have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. However, I think all that one has to do is to put oneself into their shoes and think about the most rational, most logical thing that a Justice would do if they were getting numerous such cases. It’s not like the Justices have to consider any of them.
I’ll look forward to your comments, dear readers.
-Phil
Update: MaryAnnH over at RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.org had this to say:
The Jan. 9 conference is to discuss yea or nay on the Writ of Certiorari filed by Phil Berg this past November. Jan. 16 conference is to discuss the Motion to Stay the Counting of the Electoral Votes by Congress. Interesting that both conferences are after the date that Congress will count the electoral votes. Perhaps it is because BO isn’t President-elect until the electoral votes are counted? Maybe it’s because they’re so duped that they don’t want to have to address the issues and can rule everything “moot” after Congress counts the electoral votes. Who knows. Interesting times we’re in, for sure.
Makes as much sense to me as anything else does at this point.
Update: See also this post from TalkWisdom.