Philip Berg press release (4-9)

April 10, 2009

Here’s Philip Berg’s press release from the 9th. I don’t understand why both he and Taitz use such emotional! language concerning such a serious matter. It lessens their credibility.

Berg’s original case Berg v Obama is still alive in the 3rd Circuit - oral argument scheduled the end of May. It was initially denied because of lack of standing and then was denied by SCOTUS - reason not given. His sealed case is ongoing - no idea what it is about. Hollister v Soetoro was dismissed and a reprimand placed on Berg’s local 84 y/o counsel, John D. Hemenway, by Judge Robertson. His decision was a major rant that I realize I never posted. He relied on the twittering and blogging citizenry to vet barry. One of those citizens complained and ended up having a visit from the Gestapo. Funny and disturbing. I’ll try to get to that today.

Emphasis added.

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

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

Status of Cases:

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.

***
Update 14 birth certificate
Birth certificate archive
Recovered Orly Taitz posts

Hollister v Soetoro dismissed (3-5)

March 6, 2009

Plaintiff:	GREGORY S. HOLLISTER
Defendant:	BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. and DOES
Case Number:	1:2008cv02254
Filed:	December 31, 2008
Court:	District Of Columbia District Court
Office:	Other Statutory Actions Office
County:	88888
Presiding Judge:	Judge James Robertson
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions
Cause:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jurisdiction:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	28:1335 Interpleader Action

Available Case Documents

Some selected documents for this case are included below.

Date Filed	#	Document Text
December 31, 2008	1	COMPLAINT against BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, DOES ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616017337) filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tg, ) Modified to re-upload the complaint on 1/5/2009 (tg, ).
December 31, 2008	2	MOTION to File Interpleader and Deposit Funds with the Court by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, )
December 31, 2008	3	MOTION Requesting an Order Shortening Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, )
December 31, 2008	4	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Philip J. Berg, :Firm- Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, :Address- 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531. Phone No. - (610) 825-3134. Fax No. - (610) 834-7659 by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, )
December 31, 2008	5	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Lawrence J. Joyce, :Firm- Lawrence J. Joyce, Attorney at Law, :Address- 1517 N. Wilmot Road, Suite 215, Tucson, Arizona 85712. Phone No. - (520) 584-0236. by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, )
January 14, 2009	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR served on 1/6/2009, answer due 1/26/2009 (nmw, )
January 14, 2009	7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. BARRY SOETORO served on 1/6/2009, answer due 1/26/2009 (nmw, )
January 26, 2009	8	NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Felix Bauer on behalf of BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR (Bauer, Robert)
January 26, 2009	9	MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden by BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Dismissing)(Bauer, Robert)
February 4, 2009	10	ORDER denying plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court 2 ; denying as moot plaintiff’s motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to complaint 3 ; and holding in abeyance plaintiff’s motions for leave to appear pro hac vice 4 and 5 . Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 4, 2009. (MT)
February 9, 2009	11	FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, DOES filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER.(nmw, )
February 11, 2009	12	ORDER that defendants need not respond to the amended complaint and that plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is due 2/13/09. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 11, 2009. (MT)
February 13, 2009	13	Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(nmw, )
February 25, 2009	14	DISCHARGED pursuant to Order entered 2/26/2009…..ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 25, 2009. (MT) Modified on 2/26/2009 (tg, ).
February 26, 2009	15	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 14 Order to Show Cause filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (tr)
February 26, 2009	16	ORDER that the Court’s order to show cause 14 is discharged. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 26, 2009. (MT)
February 26, 2009	17	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden filed by BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. (Bauer, Robert)
March 2, 2009	18	MOTION to Vacate 10 Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (nmw, )
March 2, 2009	19	SURREPLY re 9 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (tg, )
March 2, 2009	20	MOTION for Leave to File a Surreply by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(tg, )
March 5, 2009	21	MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 5, 2009. (MT)
March 5, 2009	22	ORDER granting defendants’ motion to dismiss 9 and John D. Hemenway is ordered to show cause within 11 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 5, 2009. (MT)

Hollister v Soetoro Interpleader denied

February 5, 2009

Hollister v Soetoro

Civil Action No. 08-2254

Plaintiff's motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is DENIED.

His motion to shorten time for the defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is DENIED.

The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip K Berg and Lawrence J Joyce are IN ABEYANCE until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.

It's basically over. Berg and Joyce are not credentialed and pro hac vice means on this occasion only. The Court is not going to allow them to do anything. Not that it wasn't over before it started. Once barry and biden met with the Supreme Court justices it was over. The question is why no one cares that the Supreme Court clearly prejudiced themselves...except for Justice Alito. Now that is a conversation I would like to have.

Hollister v Soetoro original filing

barry's motion to dismiss

Why can't just the known COLB be subpoenaed?

February 2, 2009

Some further thoughts re Col Hollister v barry soetoro (original complaint). barry was supposed to submit documents on the 26th and instead they filed a motion to dismiss. The dismissal brief sounds like a bot post with it's condescension and indignation for challenging "that one". I had no idea the law team was just as obamerized and that it would come out in legalese. I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore.

Is this American or Nazi Germany? barry knew this all going in folks. He is a constitutional and voting rights lawyer.

Anyway, it's always the fact that no one has standing. A plaintiff must have these three to meet the requirement of "standing", without which there is no case. There must be an injury in fact - something already had to have happened, there has to be a causal relationship between the injury and barry's ineligibility and there must be a substantial likelihood that a favorable ruling would redress the issue at hand.

Col Hollister's potential military service is hypothetical so there can be no injury and thus no redress. There must be some harm that comes about directly related to barry's actions and even if there were to be - all of the American People would be harmed - so one individual or group of citizens cannot claim an "injury" when everyone else would suffer the same injury.

Bottom line: It seems no citizen within or outside the military can have standing.

So who does?

Congress.

Remember their lame attempt at Sen McCain's resolution whereby they decreed him a natural born citizen? Good old Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who sold her soul when she lied about barry's snub of Sen Clinton, headed it up with an assist by the Get out of the Damn Race Already Hillary Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

If one had paranoid tendencies, one might think they are all in on the conspiracy. Why would they be so helpful to a republican when they desperately wanted barry to win? So much so, the pundits and DNC and everyone else screamed at Hillary every hour to stop "hurting" barry.

Why would they take away his advantage? To be respectful of a true America hero? Nope. They proved that with their "POW card" comments. How could any American even think those words let alone say them? Another thing Mr President did not stop. And "families were off limits" only after ArcXIX dreamt up his vile rumors and barry's attack dogs had descended on Wasilla.

The only reason they did it was so that it would be a precedent for barry. Why else wouldn't they try to eliminate McCain entirely?

It defies logic, as does everything else barry does, including withholding his long form birth certificate. No court has even suggested that someone not connected to barry's website examine the actual document. It has been taken as FACT by a "factcheck" operation that has connections to NEWSWEEK (even admitted to by jonjon alter) and Annenberg where barry palled around with bill ayers, who couldn't even get into Canada.

And if the COLB is 100% authentic, then why doesn't he release it to the media like he did his Wailing Wall "stolen" note?

The "it's sufficient enough proof" COLB is in the public domain. If it's enough - if that document is all that is needed - and that is what the court is are relying on - then have an independent news source vet it.

It is a "public record" and is being used as a "material witness" in a way, so why can't the public see it?

At the bare minimum - can't those who sued barry actually examine it in the flesh to satisfy the evidence in the case? Just that. Nothing else.

Why haven't the courts ask that it be vetted? If it were to be found to be a forgery - all the rulings they made contingent to it as "proof" have to be thrown out. Then he would have to show the long form as absolute proof in the cases that were based on forged "proof".

That is the way to make barry produce it - not as proof of his eligibility where standing is needed - but as proof to prove the authenticity and legality of the COLB used to dismiss the other cases.

Who cares about the long form - it is clear We The People will be barred access to it and it is clear none of us will ever prove standing until he injuries us and then we'll all be injured so there would be no redress to provide. So let us see the actual "proof of citizenship" he and the Court are using as a basis in part to dismiss the lawsuits.

He doesn't need to send for anything. It is online in as public a domain as there can be. It has been taken as "established proof of his citizenship" - so why can't someone simply sue to prove that the proof is a sound legal document?

Am I missing something here?

Can a case be appealed because the fundamental "proof" has never been sufficiently proven to be "proof" in the first place?

Why haven't the lawyers suing barry been able to just look at it - in hand - and attest to its authenticity?

If something is being used in a court of law as an exhibit, which is then subsequently used to "prove" something that results in the defendant not being sued and the plaintiffs' refusal, aren't the plaintiffs allowed to examine the "exhibit"?

If someone is injured in a car accident and the court dismisses the case because the defendant had a legal license - isn't the Court first responsible to prove said license was in fact legal? And isn't the plaintiff allowed to see the evidence to satisfy the ruling?

Why have only two barry sites looked at it?

More importantly - why isn't the media demanding a copy? Anyone demanding the media to demand it? What's FOX doing?

Why hasn't some hacker hacked into the site like they hacked into Palin's email account? (Not that I would ever advocate such a thing!)

The Philly judge, Hon R Barclay Surrick, when he ruled on Berg v Obama, said he couldn't imagine that barry's birth certificate would be an issue because of the "excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory".

In other words, the Court was deferring to the media, who in turn has been completely corrupted and have not bothered to vet barry because they've been vetting to the point of destruction barry's oppenents. If they have info (at least one person in the media knows), then somebody's probably writing a book and wants to remain quiet so he can make serious cash when the time comes.

What would be the punishment and who would decree it? He would be able to say, hey, the Supreme Court threw out all the cases...

The media hasn't even held themselves accountable for Iraq. How would they ever own up to this?

They are all are complicit.

Joe Scarborough said he was emailing the other networks to see if they were going to Joe Biden's prediction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Mika "Mommy" Brzezinski declared a "Biden attack-free zone" and settled on a dicussion of the more pressing issue concerning national security: the wardrobe. What a stellar job that investigative reporter did. How worthwhile must she feel at the end of the day for investigating credit card receipts and FEC filings. And the FEC isn't going to investigate barry because they don't want to embarrass him? Wasn't Palin embarrassed?

The press has demonstrated they do not know the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" let alone long form birth certificate vs Certification of Live Birth. They have shown no public awareness of the lawsuits and their various nuances - but they can check out how much clothes, hair and makeup costs and they can descend on Wasilla and completely try to ruin a family.

Tabloid jouralism at its finest. Even Barbara Walters and Andrea Mitchell (garbage truck paparazzi stake out in front of Sen Clinton's home) have joined them. Tony Blankley is embarrassed by the media? What has he done except roll merrily, merrily, merrily along and mention the "weird little internet sites"? Most egregious of all, barry has never said a word about newly-elected Minnesota Senator Al Franken's SNL incest "sketch' alleging that Todd Palin was having sex with his daughters and by extension that was his baby.

Change we can believe in!

Pardon my digression.

Why not circumvent the "standing" issue and go after the factcheck COLB itself - by itself. barry's lawyers say that the factcheck COLB is sufficient proof and because of that nothing more is warranted because no one has standing to compel him to provide anything else. Fine.

Has someone, without any conditions or interest other than simple chain of custody of evidence, subpoenaed the actual COLB that is on Factcheck to have it verified as "proof" - since it is being used as "proof" to make court rulings?

Just that. Nothing else. No comparisons to vault copy. No eligibility questions. Just as concerns the authenticity of the COLB itself by itself - that very one - presented as public record and court evidence.

Dr Fukino verified the existence of barry's long form - that it was in compliance with Hawaiian law - but she never verified that factcheck's COLB was derived from the piece of paper she verified. See here.

And what about a challenge to the actual website?

What if factcheck.org was proven to have lied about other "fact checks"?

Wouldn't that be compelling evidence to warrant a recheck of that actual COLB?

Like if they lied on other things - knowingly or not - then the integrity of their factchecking - including barry's COLB - would be brought into question thus requiring independent analysis. Requesting a new one could in no way rectify the decisions that were made referencing or relying on the factcheck COLB as "evidence" of "proof".

And how does factcheck have standing to evaluate barry's COLB and not anyone else?

Hollister v Soetoro (original complaint)

February 2, 2009

Thanks obamhoaxer for letting me know that link didn't work. Not that it matters but here's an embed of the original complaint. Hollister v Soetoro. Can enlarge, email or print with the arrows at the top.

(1-26-09) barry's motion to dismiss.

Hollister v Soetoro (Motion to Dismiss)

February 2, 2009

Here's barry's lawyers motion to dismiss. They always wait to the very end of the deadline. Hollister v Soetoro. Can enlarge, email or print with the arrows at the top. On page #2 you can see the true worthlessness of the document. They cite factcheck as their proof. Didn't bother with the rest of the fine print. Original filing.

GLOBE to feature Berg again (2-2-09)

January 26, 2008

Berg's press release on appearing in the Globe again. I would like to know what that sealed case entails. Highlight added.

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/26/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” 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 announced today that the new issue of GLOBE Magazine [2/2/09 issue] highlights his efforts to expose Obama not being “constitutionally qualified” and therefore, Obama should be removed from office.

Berg also stated that the U.S. Supreme Court denied his request for an Injunction from the Conference that was held on January 16, 2009. However, the case that was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, Berg vs. Obama is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where Berg just filed a Brief on 1/20/09. Berg said I had bypassed the Third Circuit hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear our case on an expedited basis because of the significance of the case.

The two [2] other cases are in Federal Court and I will advise you shortly about the status of each.

Berg said, “This is the 5th time GLOBE Magazine has highlighted the question of Obama’s lack of ‘constitutional qualifications’ to be President. The new story about Obama is the center spread and two [2] other pages. More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the constitutional ‘qualifications’ and that this is the biggest ‘Hoax’ perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years.”

Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the thousands and thousands that have died defending our Constitution with the legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President.”

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
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-02254
Response to Hollister Complaint due 1/26/09 by Soetoro/Obama and Biden

I don't know if the response was returned.

Berg v Obama DENIED (1-16-09)

January 21, 2009

Surprise. The case conferenced on 1-16-09 was DENIED by SCOTUS.

Curious how they waited until after the inauguration. Can't imagine Chief Justice Roberts swearing barry in once twice or however many times if he had any doubt about barry's "constitutional eligibility" to serve. It's over folks...until someone talks.

No. 08-570
Title:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
Jan 12 2009 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson GRANTED.
Jan 12 2009 Petition DENIED.
Jan 21 2009 Application (08A505) denied by the Court.

Berg still has a case under seal and is acting as interpleader in Hollister v Barry Soetero.

UPDATED: Phil Berg's comment on denial

January 12, 2009

It said press release but it links to the 1-9-09 press release.

Berg states he is disappointed for the 300+ million US citizens, for our "Forefathers" and for the tens of thousands that have died defending "our" Constitution and we will fight on as Obama is "not qualified" to be President.

Update: The rest of the press release is now available:

BERG: I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being 'not qualified' for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest 'HOAX' ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.

In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:

--A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case 'under seal' so I cannot comment further;

--The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an 'Interpleader' case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a 'qualified' President;

--The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and

--If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of 'Quo Warranto,' a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is 'not qualified.'

'If Obama is sworn in' because Obama knows he is 'not qualified' and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President.

However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!

More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the 'qualifications' for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.

Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for 'change,' but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton's days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!

There is nothing more important than 'our' U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!"

On another note, Col Hollister was not on the radio last night - just Phil Berg and his assistant, Lisa. I don't know her last name

Here's the link to the broadcast last night. I don't know how to embed audio. It's also available on itunes as a podcast.

Phil Berg & Col Hollister on radio tonite

January 11, 2009

Philip Berg, the Philly lawyer behind Berg v Obama will be on Blogtalk Radio at 7pm tonight (1-11-09). With him will be Lisa, Berg's assistant and Ret. USAF Col Hollister. Hollister v Barry Soetero is the newest Berg case challenging barry's eligibility. Hollister has a reasonable argument for "standing", which has been the main hurdle thus far.

I don't know anything about blogtalkradio or the host or anything else but here's the info:

Momma E and the Radio Rebels - Hosted By Mark McGrew
1/11/2009 7:00 PM
Call-in Number: (347) 237-4870

Col Hollister v barry soetoro

January 9, 2009

I was looking over the birth certificate posts and court cases since Berg v Obama is being conferenced by SCOTUS today and can't find Colonel Hollister's post. I'm going on memory here.

Colonel Hollister (in his 50's) lives in Colorado and is retired from the USAF. As such, he is subject to ready reserve, which means he is forever holden to the commander in chief. servicemembers can be called up no matter their age or how long they served. What an incentive.

This gives Col. Hollister "standing" in that his performance of duty directly hinges on whether barry is a legally qualified Commander in Chief. The previous suits the plaintiffs had no standing and they were dismissed in part because of it.

Col Hollister as an active member of the USAF would be legally bound to follow the president's orders. If barry is constitutionally eligible to be CIC - no problem. If barry is constitutionally ineligible - it's a problem. Servicemembers are sworn to protect our country and in doing so uphold The Constitution. So, if barry is ineligible, they - including Col Hollister - would in a sense have a right and a duty to not follow his orders, as they would be null and void because barry would be a usurper. This of course goes all the way up the chain of command.

Hollister's case is still in the lower courts. I wonder if the USAF could circumvent this by discharging (or whatever) Col Hollister from ever having to serve again. Since Berg is acting as an interpleader the burden of proof is shifted to barry. Very important since barry is forced to prove he is eligible vs berg proving he is ineligible.

Hollister is suing barry as barry soetero, which may in fact be his legal name if he was adopted in Indonesia and never had it legally changed back to barry obama. Hence the importance of his school and medical records to see exactly what name he used and which of the little boxes he checked off. If his name is barry soetero he committed fraud on his initial application to the Illinois Bar.

Can you imagine if this were to be true and he has done all this knowingly as a Constitutional lawyer?

Berg also has a mysterious lawsuit going that is sealed so he can't comment on it. I have no idea what that could be but it makes me wonder if it involves DNA. No reason - just curiosity. Anyone else know anything?

No. 08-570 has been distributed for conference on January 16, 2009.

Background and previous updates.

(1-26-09) Motion for Dismissal