SCOTUS/Obama Update: 2nd Berg Conference To Stay Election Result Scheduled

Supremes schedule 2nd eligibility conference for Berg case wnd

A second conference
has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.
The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.
Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."
"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis, [sic]'" Berg wrote.
fyi: There has been somewhat of a lull in the 'Obama-no certificate/SCOTUS no-action' drama and it's a bit of waiting game now, but it has definitely not gone away. Here's the latest update:

Berg's original case is scheduled for SCOTUS conference 1-9-'09, the day after the U.S. Congress meets (1-8-'09) to formally ratify the 12-15-'08 Electoral College vote. A second motion by Berg has now also been accepted by the Supreme Court on the third time around and is scheduled for conference on 1-16-'09. This new motion is an injunction asking the court for a stay on the validation of the 'Election 2008' result. The second conference, four days before the 'inauguration' date of 1-20-'09, will presumably be pointless unless Berg's 1-9-'09 case is granted a full hearing.
Berg is still promising that a 'Constitutional Crisis' is a certainty if the courts and congress continue to refuse to address the issue. Still impossible to call but the 'pretender-prez' conspiracy looks to be heating up again soon. stay tuned


Ted said...


Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” -- dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth -- albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will -- rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)

Anonymous said...

Brilliant comment! I didn't remember the exact definition of "coup d'etat," but it describes exactly what's going on:

"A coup d’état (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]), often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.

"The coup d’état succeeds if its opponents fail to thwart the usurpers, allowing them to consolidate their positions, obtain the surrender of the overthrown government or acquiescence of the populace and the surviving armed forces, and thus claim legitimacy. Coups d’état typically use the power of the existing government for the takeover." (from wikipedia)

Now to find out what the Bivens case is all about.

Anonymous said...

Ted, I agree with you 100%. If members of congress knowingly allow this fraud to be seated as President, they are guilty of treason. I believe there was a coup d'etat in the democratic party, and now we are witnessing a coup d'etat in our federal government.

There are several more cases floating around at the state level. And I think the one in Washington has some validity in terms of standing.