Berg Re-files His Super Sekrit Qui Tam Case..

tsiya 9 months ago

Hey, if he did the crime he does the time! He isn't in Chicago anymore!

Big Rooster 9 months ago

A judge in California has scheduled a July 13 hearing in a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president in which the plaintiffs' attorney, Orly Taitz, says the commander-in-chief is in default.

Taitz told WND if her motion is granted she will immediately request access to Obama's birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: "Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants' behalf."

Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation.

"I have a very clear case," Taitz said. "I think they dropped the ball. They didn't figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.

The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state's court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.

"I will be asking for the release of his vital records," she said.

"The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn't applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab," she explained.

"He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position," she wrote.

"The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records."

The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant "Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro."

The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.

"Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3)," she wrote.

Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.

Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.

She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.

"Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court's order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion," she argued.

"In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal."

She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.

"Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?

"It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party's status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?" she continued.

"Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs' motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b)."

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

I bet you a billion dollars the judge dismisses Oily's case. A BILLION.

I bet you a second billion that, afterwards, Orly claims the judge is an Obot and unfit to sit on the bench.

You in?

Big Rooster 9 months ago

Welfare and foodstamps do not count in betting circles...and as much as you love the taste of Obama in your mouth I still doubt that he love you so much as to give you 2 billion dollars in welfare either.

If you would of had somebody read you the whole thing you would have a better reply than what you posted.

If the judge does toss it...oh well, they will just keep on with the fight. If the judge doesn't toss it...you know you will be blasted on here.

tsiya 9 months ago

The wonderful thing about Obama and his cultists is that they are guilty of so much wrongdoing that something will stick, sooner or later!

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

yeh, but it won't be this. You'd have to bring some competence to the courtroom to get it done. And all of you are flat out retards, including Orly.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

"You'd have to bring some competence to the courtroom"..that would be subjective and left up to the judges discretion wouldn't it? Other than that it would just be your lame assessment based on your opinion.

tsiya 9 months ago

We are smart enough to recognize a con artist.If he starts mixing Koolaid you better run like hell!

Big Rooster 9 months ago

How long till Obama is booted?
I’m wondering how long it will be before the word “impeachment” starts being bantered about?

The list of reasons to expel Obama keeps getting longer and stronger, and this is only five months into his reign.

Everyone knows about his inexperience. His rhetorical abilities made people overlook this weakness. Even his eligibility to have become president is becoming an issue.

He places personal and party ideologies over what is best for America. I thought when appointing justices, it was supposed to be “the best person for the job” and “justice is blind.” Affirmative-action policies and “empathy” aren’t part of the requirements for appointment.

He fits the definition of being a narcissist perfectly. This makes him extremely dangerous for the country. He only cares about what is best for him, not the country.

He is ashamed of our country (as was his wife until Barack won his party’s nomination) even though it has given him immense amounts of opportunity. He constantly feels the need to apologize for our country’s history of perceived repressiveness.

Sorry, Barack, we are the greatest country in the history of the world. No country has done more for other countries where there has been suppression of human rights, and Americans are unmatched in raising money and supplies for others when natural disasters hit.

You have been hanging around the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers too long.

You have been going around (the Muslim world in particular), speaking of “the promise of a secular nation.” How much more arrogant and ignorant can you be?

Even though you think highly of your rhetorical skills, you are not going to change the fact that a vast majority of Americans believe in God.

Why do you keep implying to other countries that our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

Your history of duplicity is unmatched. This was illustrated numerous times throughout the campaign. You carry it forward into your presidency.

You incur the largest-ever budget deficit and then insist that we operate on a pay-as-you-go principle from now on. Of course, shortly thereafter, you exempt your government-run health program costs from this rule. You are great with smoke and mirrors, Barack. You are the ultimate flim-flam man.

You are a corrupt man. You appoint tax cheats and disreputable people to positions of power. You promise no lobbyists in your administration, yet no other administration had close to the number you now have.

You fire people who uncover very serious issues of impropriety by organizations run by individuals who are close friends of yours. You had your Justice Department cancel a criminal suit against goons, representing your friends ACORN and the Black Panthers, involving voter intimidation tactics at election polls.

You are dishonest and lie when it serves your purposes. Including examples above, you ridiculed John McCain’s idea of taxing employer-funded health insurance premiums, promising never to follow such a policy during your administration.

Change your mind, Obama? You promised no tax increases for individuals making under $250,000. What do you call proposals like getting rid of tax-excludable programs like Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts?

Millions of middle- and low-income individuals participate in these programs. What do you call new taxes proposed on soda and beer? I guess only the rich drink these.

You are proposing one of the largest increases in corporate taxes in history. Who do you think ends up paying for these increased costs of doing business?

I think these mentioned items also fall under the topic of incompetence. And I thought we could never get a leader less competent than Jimmy Carter. I was wrong.

How about your lying to the American Medical Association? You specifically said, “I’ll be honest, there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well.”

Why couldn’t your press secretary name just one when pressed for an example?

Why did your mainstream media stooges, especially The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, specifically leave that quote out of their news articles, but quote everything said before and after that part of your speech perfectly?

You continually show disrespect for and trample on our Constitution, especially when it bars you from enacting your most radical ideas.

There is hope, however. Sixty-six percent of the voters from age 18 to 30 voted for you while only 32 percent voted for McCain. Voters 30 and above, on the other hand, favored you by a margin of only 50 percent to 49 percent.

Do you think you can fool the younger voting bloc twice, Barack? I don’t think so, especially when they see the impact of your socialist agenda on their lives. Maybe we won’t have to wait another 31/2 years for “change.”

http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/local_story_174034512.html

tsiya 9 months ago

He better keep his Kenyan citizenship papers current! Maybe his old Granny will forgive him for calling her a liar!

Big Rooster 9 months ago

I would love to see him booted from office and then sent to Gitmo for acts of treason and terrorism on the United States of America.

He should be stood in front a firing squad and shot for what he has already done.

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Hee-hee-hee!

It does my heart good to see such self-delusion!!

Keep up the good work!!

Big Rooster 9 months ago

"It does my heart good to see such self-delusion"...how can anyones opinion be self delusional without being proven otherwise?

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Easy. Point out any historical precedent where you've WON. Surely, SOMEONE SOMEWHERE in a position to make an unbiased legal opinion has ruled in your favor?

No?

Hmmmmph. I wonder why that is?

Big Rooster 9 months ago

That was every bit as retarded as I expected. An "unbiased legal opinion" is based on facts...or at least thats what you keep preaching...or was you wrong?

tsiya 9 months ago

If anyone thinks the scrutiny will end they'd better think again. The corruption is there, they can't hide it forever. They aren't in Chicago anymore!

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Well, good luck!!

Call me when you get the first congressman who doesn't think you're all a bunch of fascist right wing nutjobs.

God knows the rest of the country thinks so.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

Lee, they have a hard time staying on topic with what you posted because they are Obamas fluffers. Blackie want everybody to think he's right about something before he dies from a heart attack and moderator is the websites biggest and most uninformed liar. They have nothing to say of any worth and are pretty much just on here to get an argument out of somebody so their day can be complete.

Don't waste your time on talking with moderator because he will tell you lies just to get you think he is right.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

The numbers on this site say your wrong blackie...and these are about as random as it gets.

tsiya 9 months ago

Do you think that the Constitution is "rightwing"? That is where I am. I take my oath seriously. My opinion is that any other stance is treasonous.

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Your opinion isn't law.

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

"The numbers on this site say your wrong blackie...and these are about as random as it gets. "

This website is .... overrun by people who are wrong. the only reason they come to this website is because they got their feelings hurt last November...by the real majority of Americans....who are out struggling to turn this country around.

BTW, you'll be happy to know that I've recouped the thousands and thousands of dollars I lost in the stock market last September. I'm back even. I'm not ahead yet, but I'm happier now than I was under GW Bush.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

"Your opinion isn't law."...I never said it was...stay on track and try again retard.

This is what I said "An "unbiased legal opinion" is based on facts...or at least thats what you keep preaching...or was you wrong?"...try to answer that with out killing yourself idiot.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

"This website is .... overrun by people who are wrong. the only reason they come to this website is because they got their feelings hurt last November...by the real majority of Americans....who are out struggling to turn this country around."...this isn't the law either but you wish it was.

"BTW, you'll be happy to know that I've recouped the thousands and thousands of dollars I lost in the stock market last September. I'm back even. I'm not ahead yet, but I'm happier now than I was under GW Bush."...wow... a black man saying that he has money...I haven't ever heard that in every video they have rapped about for the last 20 years...turn it in to rap video blackie and be somebody.

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

I that comment (Your opinion isn't law) wasn't addressed to you, assmunch, was it? It was addressed to your bitch friend tsiya.

The courts have left both your asses as 540 lbs of chewed bubble gum. That's why you can't even point to a single MORAL victory in the courts, much less a LEGAL victory. None in the past, none in the future. You just have this venue to grind your axe.

tsiya 9 months ago

A war consists of many battles, the winner of the last battle wins the war.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

And you still didn't answer my question...I wonder why? Could it be you have no credible answer? You are ate up with it...ain't cha boy. Answer my question if you can.

"This is what I said "An "unbiased legal opinion" is based on facts...or at least thats what you keep preaching...or was you wrong?"

Big Rooster 9 months ago

"The courts have left both your asses as 540 lbs of chewed bubble gum"...did you actually weigh it or just have your wife stand by it and figure that since they were about the same size...

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

"A war consists of many battles, the winner of the last battle wins the war. "

I've already told you how birfers plan to win this war. You'll print up some bumper stickers in January 2017 that say, "End of an Error." and claim victory.

Big Rooster 9 months ago

Answer this Blackie...you starded this and need to answer up.

This is what I said "An "unbiased legal opinion" is based on facts...or at least thats what you keep preaching...or was you wrong?"...try to answer that with out killing yourself idiot.

And your answer is???

Big Rooster 9 months ago

Stings a lot doesn't it?

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Here's something for you, Rooster.

Do you know who Ed Hale is? He's a big, idiot Birfer from Texas, just like you. He runs an anti-Obama radio show called Plains Radio.

Well, tonite Ed is going to unveil another in a long line of failed birfer promises, all of which were guaranteed to bring down the Usurper.

I WILL BE THERE, ALONG WITH SCORES OF OTHER OBOTS LOOKING FOR A LAUGH. We're hoping he unveils the Kraken.

Ed's call-in phone number is 806 447 8270. The show starts at 21:00 EST.

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Or you can go here:

http://politijab.com/phpBB3/chat/

And listen to Obots chatting about how to undermine and laugh at birfers while smirking about Ed Hale's show. You're a big tough guy. Show up.

creeksneakers2 9 months ago

The wingnuts tried the same insanity with Clinton and ended up failing.

The scam works like this. Wingnut makes accusation. Wingnut forwards accusation to the justice department. The justice department reviews the accusation and declares it silly wingnutry. Wingnuts then accuse the justice department of having a conflict of interest, because the justice department works under the president. Winguts demand an independent counsel be appointed to investigate.

By this typically screwy logic,any accusation anybody anywhere wants to send to the justice department would get an independent counsel. Before wingnuts abused the independent counsel act so badly that it had to be left to expire, the test used to be that there had to be credible evidence for the accusation. Conflict of interest took something much more than simply working under the executive branch.

When Bush ran the justice deparment, they covered up and lied just as bad as he did. They never investigated crap, except the Liddy thing, for which they let Rove off the hook and Bush pardoned the guilty anyway.

The wingnuts are back to trying the stupid tricks they played on Bill Clinton but they won't work anymore. There is a strong left wing presence on the Internet who knows what the truth is and will get on the media's ass if they lie like they did about Clinton.

Obama and the Democrats have learned (after we on the net told them for years) that the best thing to do with wingnut witch hunts is to stand up to them from the start and never give them a thing. So the wingnut scams are a waste of time now. They won't work.

blackmonrikker 9 months ago

Creek,

Go over to the PJ chatroom. We're massing to swarm up on Ed tonite. It'll be hilarious. Last month I barged into one of Phil Berg's radio shows. Oh man, you shoulda been there. He was freaking out!!!

http://politijab.com/phpBB3/chat/

Big Rooster 9 months ago

Answer this Blackie...you started this and need to answer up.

This is what I said "An "unbiased legal opinion" is based on facts...or at least thats what you keep preaching...or was you wrong?"...try to answer that with out killing yourself idiot.

And your answer is??? Why don't you answer? Well?

Big Rooster 9 months ago

You are not man enough to answer up to the SHlT you started. I can't believe you don't have an answer...you are a retard that won't own up to what you say.

Categories

Why Is This Idea Important?