Berg vs Obama moves to Supreme Court – read the dismissal order here.

Join Mobius on MySpace
Subscribe to The Mobius Trip by Email

Bookmark and Share

Berg v Obama, et al – Dismissal Memorandum and Order

Click the link above to get the Court’s decision in this ongoing case. (pdf)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) – 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, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

Our website now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Join Mobius on MySpace

Subscribe to The Mobius Trip by Email

Bookmark and Share


6 Responses

  1. […] NOT many answers.  Updates:  Here and Here and Here and Here. And here. And here.  And here.  Berg v Obama Decision here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)REPUBLIC: The Ireland Constitutional […]

  2. I read the entire thing, and it makes sense, and it was done completely right.

    There will be no standing on this issue other. If we were to go to a completely constitutional based government McCain would not be allowed to be president, and Obama would be allowed under the law. Thank goodness that it doesn’t work that way!

    This is a side issue that has no legitimate base. It needs to be dismissed and moved beyond.

  3. I read it, too. It basically says “None of your business”.

    Typical Richard Nixon type politics.

    Most of the ‘move on’ comments I get come from the lack of an actual argument – simply put, Obama can settle this doubt with ten bucks and a phone call, yet he refuses to do so. Why?

    This isn’t really about eligibility here, although if he was NOT born in Hawaii, that comes into doubt. It’s about credibility….of which the Obama Machine has much, even if it’s self propelled. Obama, the man, has none.

    Oh, and I’m not sure where you live, but here in the US, we’re supposed to “Preserve, protect and defend” our Constitution. Just a thought.

  4. Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!

  5. Ted I’ll post that brief – can you point me to where it is?

  6. Todd1 Says:
    October 26, 2008 at 4:46 am

    Obama’s Birth Certificate Judge-Obama Linkage
    Media + Sidley Austin ^ | Oct 25, 2008 | xgman

    Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:47:53 PM by XGMan

    I just posted this over at
    In Re: Judge Dismissing BO Birth Certificate Case
    Thought it might be of interest.


    While doing a little of my own “Fact-Checking”, I ran across some interesting linkage between
    U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick and one Barack H. Obama.

    As we all know, Barack and Michelle worked at Sidley Austin law when they met.

    Also working with Michelle at Sidley at the same time was one Bernardine Dohrn, beloved wife of Bill Ayers.

    Now it turns out a fellow named Christopher B. Seaman is the former law clerk for U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

    Christopher B. Seaman also works for a firm named Sidley Austin.

    Gosh. It’s a small world after all.

    See here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: