See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Press Release 11-07-08: US Supreme Court awaits response to Berg Writ of Certiorari from Obama, DNC and co-defendants
Source:
obamacrimes.com
URL Source: http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Published: Nov 9, 2008
Author: obamacrimes.com
Post Date: 2008-11-09 13:15:37 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: Obama, Berg, Supreme Court
Views: 967
Comments: 7
Press Release 11-07-08: US Supreme Court awaits response to Berg Writ of Certiorari from Obama, DNC and co-defendants Saturday, 08 November 2008 04:23 administrator For Immediate Release: - 11/07/08 U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS (Contact information and PDF at end) (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008. Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.” Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response. The Defendants' response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg's reply will be submitted thereafter. # # # 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 philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Attachments: File
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
So this decision is very good for Berg and for America, yes? "In the United States, less than 5% of the requests for a writ of certiorari are granted, due to the high volume of requests and the busy court schedule."
I don't think the Supremes will hear the case. Course I've been wrong before. Obama citizenship and the Constitution Written by Jim Capo Forced to bet on it, I'd take the under on the dopey crows hearing it.
Berg's a Democrat and a Jew. I'll bet this was a Dem/Jewish op the whole way to make the issue moot and get their boy in there.
That would be my guess as well. If he really wanted to keep Obama out he would be trying to get one Senator and one Representative to contest the electoral count. Once the Supremes turn down the suit it will be considered "settled". I would like to see a ligit fight. Someone needs to work on going after the electoral votes.
#2. To: Rotara (#1)
#3. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#4. To: TwentyTwelve, Jethro Tull, Original_Intent, lodwick, rotara, noone222, scrapper2, christine, bluegrass, swarthyguy (#0)
Wednesday, 29 October 2008 12:33 5) If I understand the US code correctly (go to section 15), to challenge the electoral votes as they are being counted in Congress, requires a minimum of one House member and one Senate member from the same state, to submit in writing, during the time of counting, the reason for their challenge to the votes from a particular state being counted. (States ballots are counted in alphabetical order) The challenge must be resolved before the counting of elector votes is allowed to continue.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#5. To: farmfriend (#4)
#6. To: farmfriend (#4)
#7. To: bluegrass (#6)
Berg's a Democrat and a Jew. I'll bet this was a Dem/Jewish op the whole way to make the issue moot and get their boy in there.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest