Those who scoff it off are embarrassed to take up a cause that may be proven against.

Stand up for the constitution. No matter how “silly” you think it may be. Imagine taking that stance on something that was popular and politically correct. Ignoring this issue is the measure of just that: our ignorance.

Dear Mr. Lawler,

Our office recognizes your concern and we agree with Attorney Berg’s assessments as such we have been in communication and jointly support this effort.

Our complaint has as well addressed with Attorney Bergs held the same concerns we have a joint statement with Attorney Berg held on December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club Conference where Attorney Taitz as Attorney Berg has addressed the public in this forum. This statement will explain better our position in detail.

A video of this will be posted on Attorney Berg’s website at http://www.obamacrimes.com soon.

Thanks for your concern

WHAT IS HE HIDING??????

“Any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.”

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserve

If it has not been done then who is to say that tyranny can not rule? If Obama is truly eligible under the constitution I respect his election even I profoundly disagree with his ways. My hope that the judicial contamination will be limited or not contaminated. But through the history of those of whom share Obama’s ideology great damage has been done. Legislation from the bench instead of properly done is rampant. The constitution gets in the way so it is circumvented.

I do not blame The People who demand this. Even though it has been limited we still have the right to regress our grievances and be heard.

Please sign it anyone who is concerned. I believe it was started about a week ago and already has over 100,000 signatures.

Pass it on…

It is also amazing that only a handful of people have filed cases. There are many legal points that have not been covered.

Good working with you as well. Thanks again. Please do inform me of any other discussions going on different subjects I do enjoy your incite and hope to add as well.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 26 November 2008, 1650 hrs EST

Lessons learned

Do not to be so quick to jump on a band wagon as the band maybe playing the wrong song.

Always question intention even given I support a possible outcome.

Do the homework and that I have prided myself in but in this case was lacking a bit.

Think as if I was defending this case.

This was a very good discussion I hope to be invited to more. I will conclude my project after case closed and work an analogy from there.

Thanks again I have a heads up but who knows what possible can transpire.

Even if Berg somehow has standing his case might still be non-justiciable because it’s a “political question” per the US Constitution.

And my own personal opinion is that even if it was tried on its merits in the District Court it would fail because it lacks merit.

If I thought the case had merit, I would want to see it tried. The law does not support Berg’s claims or Keyes’ claims.

So, to my way of thinking these are junk cases, not worth trying.

The Supremes I think will figure this out on December 5th or whenever. They will deny Certiorari as well they should.

We put this in the junk pile. That’s the right place for it in my humble opinion.

Don’t expect that I will keep responding on this issue.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 Nov 2008 2223 hrs EST

I agree that Keyes, Berg and Martin have a motive be it for political or not. There is something compelling them on above the constitutional adherents claimed. Fame or gain with a popular movement, who knows?

Questions for you as I do highly respect and appreciate your opinion.

If indeed vexatious litigation (Pearson v. Chung) or could be. Why did Judge Surrick make no mention in his dismissal? I would ponder, do please correct me if I am wrong, would be an easier rout on merit issue. In case Pearson v. Chung yes ridicules damage claims but how much more ridicules to ask removal, loss of campaign donation mounting to $600million plus and for disenfranchisement for those who voted for presidential candidate? Being the precedent case I believe they would fear heavy sanctions against Berg, Keyes and Martin.

If indeed that be the case. There is a conference of SCOTUS judges going on Dec.5. Would they not look first and weigh in on merit? Seems the importance factor would address possible merit before hand.

I still do not understand if the question be answered simply by product of proof, possible sanction action against accusers and a wash of public rumor. Why has that not been done in light not still given darkness or fog?

I was reading my last comments forgive that obviously the Hennessy Ellipse my brother sent me I had a bit to much and that was speaking.

Weighing that evidence is fairly easy. What chance is there that very heavy penalties would come down on the Hawai’i authorities if they were found to be lying about something like that. I think 100% chance, right?

Those authorities allege that there is a long form vault copy and that they have seen it. How risky would it be for them to declare such a thing exists, if it does not exist? Very risky, right. Somebody might come out with a subpoena, or Obama might waive his Privacy Act rights, all kinds of things could happen that would put the Hawai’i authorities in the path of big trouble if they said they had seen and verified and were correctly relaying the substance of a document that did not exist.

Do bureaucrats ordinarily plunge themselves and their careers into huge risks for the sake of people they don’t know? I think not.

If Obama was in fact born in Hawai’i is there anything in the Berg or Keyes complaints that would constitute an ex-patriation?

Not according to the INA law (previously posted by Strauss and by me). That law makes it extremely difficult to expatriate oneself. There’s a very short list of very specific things and they all have to be accompanied by specific intent that is explicit and on the record, not just implied or implicit.

If Obama never lost his citizenship by his travels to Pakistan on and Indonesian passport at age 20, then he never need to take the Oath of Allegiance to recalim his citizenship which was never lost.

If he was born in Hawai’i, which in 1961 was a state, just like any other state, then he was a natural born citizen. The mother’s residency is not relevant — those rules only apply if the baby is born outside the USA, but Hawai’i was inside the USA, so they don’t apply — it doesn’t matter where she lived before Obama was born, or for how long.

Because the Berg and Keyes cases are totally devoid of merit, and because my research into the law and my analysis revealed that to me, I withdrew my approval and support from those cases about a week ago.

Rational people do not persist on a path that is shown to be without merit. Only people whose minds simply cannot be affected by the facts continue to believe things that the facts strongly suggest are not true. When the facts change, I change my mind. I once thought the Berg and Keyes cases were potentially valid. Now the facts have changed, so I don’t think those cases are potentially valid — I think they are clearly invalid and unworthy of my support.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 November 2008, 1210 hrs EST

It is much easier to follow with blinds then with examining spectacles. Obviously the election heavily hinged on this. Truth is always a hard subject, to see the truth leave no room for flawed concepts. The truth veiled finds those willing to see only the mask with no interest to remove that of which hides.

The task has two sides. It must defend the truth at time and other defend the non truth. You stand accused before a panel of piers. I chose some wisely the opposition chose some wisely. The task to unveil the truth or to paint the veil to hide the truth. If the veil is removed then makes increasing difficulty to cast a doubt.