Berg v Obama is the False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit by Philip J. Berg claiming that Barack Obama fraudulently collected money from the US Government (his salary) while being ineligible for office. This is also the mysterious lawsuit once “sealed.”
Another one bites the dust.
The district court dismissed, and now the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that dismissal in the tersely worded decision following.
BERG v OBAMA (FCA) – (APPEAL) – PER CURIAM JUDGMENT – Affirmed – Transport Room by Jack Ryan
even more proof of the mind-boggling depth and width of the the corruption the usurper is inflicting on this once-great nation.
that, or the birfer bus is right on track as it’s always been: straight to the supreme court and discovery!
Ha thats funny. The birfer bus will never get what they want
don’t birthers understand that even if they get discovery, the COLB is more than adequate in any US Court, especially if vouched for by State of Hawaii? Is ignornace a common birther trait?
Not suprising. The Kerchner lawsuit is sure to suffer the same fate. The court can simply dismiss these civil lawsuit very easily. The only case that has any chance is the LTC Terry Lakin case because it is a criminal trial and not a civil trial. The court can’t easily dismiss the case because Lakin’s liberty is at stake. Addition, there is a tremendous body of law on due process which protects the rights of the accused. Lakin, with a good legal team, should be entitled to complete discovery into Obama’s records to proffer his defense in the interests of justice, due process, and right to a fair trial. Any denial of this would have to result in the dismissal of the charges against Lakin or represent a blatant misjustice and violation of our legal system.
The Kerchner lawsuit is sure to suffer the same fate. The court can simply dismiss these civil lawsuit very easily.
My god; I agree with James on something.
The only case that has any chance is the LTC Terry Lakin case because it is a criminal trial and not a civil trial.
As the IO explained, no birther defense will be allowed; it simply isn’t relevant to the pending charges.
Well then Lakin’s goose is well and fully cooked.
I’d say its pretty much a defining birther trait.
“The only case that has any chance is the LTC Terry Lakin case because it is a criminal trial and not a civil trial.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! !
Whew! Funny stuff!
Hey James, you keep brining up AWOL Lakin. General Petraeus, has accepted Obama’s orders and is serving his country as he is a tru American Patriot. Answer us why Lakin can’t do the same, Lakin will need that answer soon.
Unlike most, Lakin takes his constitutional oath very seriously.
Lakin is a coward and a bigot and deserves nothing more than free room and board at Ft. Leavenworth.
Here is the oath Lakin took:
“I Terry Lakin do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
If Obama is ineligible then Obama is a “domestic” enemy of the US Constitution and it is Lakin’s sworn duty to uphold it – So Help Him God!
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
Keep in mind the last sentence: Any order whose authority is derived or vested in the Commander in Chief would be violatory to the Constitution of the United States if such authority is that of usurpness(meaning the Command in Chief is ineligible and not supposed to be there.) There’s no way the Defacto Officer Doctrine could correct this violation except in only a practical sense and not in Constitutional sense.
Yes, Lieutenant Coward Lakin took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Barack Obama is the Constitutionally elected president of the United States of America and is Lakin’s commander-in-chief. End of story
Obama’s eligibility is indeed relevent. If such a defense would not establish innosence, such a defense could be used to mitigate punishment. If Obama is really ineligible as Lakin alleges, rather than be punished for his actions, Lakin could be given the chance to resign his commission if he feels that orders under illegal Obama violate his oath. While this may have be an option for Lakin before he refused the orders, Lakin didn’t have proof that Obama was ineligible, only a severe doubt. The establishment of Obama’s eligiblity would no doubt give Lakin a choice, follow his orders anyway or resign. I submit that Lakin has not yet refused orders and that his orders are actually in abayance pending the establishment of Obama’s eligiblity to be Command in Cheif – The Constitutional authority in which his orders are vested.
Except in the minds of the mentally ill.
Lakin has nothing except an incompetent dog bite lawyer, an upcoming dishonorable discharge, loss of pension and a prison sentence for refusing to obey lawful orders.
Lakin has this guy as a lawyer?
Incorrect Lakin has disobeyed his orders when he missed his deployment. Obama’s eligibility has nothing to do with Lakin’s orders
Do you think at sentencing time Lakin will be able to plead “WND made me do it” as a mitigating circumstance?
That’s hysterical! 2000 Dogs Sued!
I predict sobbing and lots of eye rolling and sighs of disgust at sentencing.
James, I am curious, what will your response be when AWOL Lakin gets convicted, as your past posts seem to show, you are allergic to reality, Just curious..
Why don’t you find and support a candidate to oppose Obama in 2012, this birther stuff is a waste of time. If discovery is made, every court in the US would accept the COLB. I guess you enjoy failure.
Just the opposite, really.
Lakin is an officer; he ought to know better. That he listened to a bunch of civies isn’t going to impress anyone.
You can “submit” that, but you’d be wrong. Lakin was charged with missing a movement and disobeying orderings; there’s no asterix saying, “Pending eligibility determination.”
How do we know that Lakin swore any oath? Do we have any evidence that he swore such an oath?
Not that it is really material but why, James, do you assume that Lakin swore such an oath? There is far more evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii than evidence that Lakin swore any oath.
James: do you think Patreus is asking to see a birth certificate? [snicker]
Lakin had his fingers crossed.
Why do simple facts so elude the birther mind? President Obama was born in Hawaii. The proper authorities from the State of Hawaii have confirmed that their records show that he was born there. In order to be a natural born citizen, a person simply has to born in the United States. Hawaii is part of the United States. Therefore, President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.
If you don’t like the fact that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen, then try to change the US Constitution by amendment. That would be the rational thing to do. Trying to deny simple facts and make up fake law to get what you want is not rational or in the end, sane.
I sincerely hope that Lakin and Jensen march into the court martial with a copy of that Wikipedia article with its single reference to “Rules of Engagement?: A Social Anatomy of an American War Crime Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq” by Marjorie Cohn and Kathleen Gilberd to explain why Lakin committed a text book offense in violation of Article 87 of the UCMJ, Missing a Movement (by design). We shall see just how effective that defense will be.
I wonder why Phil Berg doesn’t update his website http://www.obamacrimes.com with the news? Berg rarely updates his website anymore which why Berg has kind have fallen off by the wasteside of the birther movement. I hate when Berg interviews. He always says the same thng to a T almost as if he is reading a script or a teleprompter like Obama. I get excited when Mario and Charles interview and most recently Margraret Heminway is probably the best one of them all since she has the inside experience of Washington DC politics.
“Any denial of this would have to result in the dismissal of the charges against Lakin or represent a blatant misjustice and violation of our legal system.”
Just like how you were so SURE that your sham American Grand Jury was going to get Obama thrown out of office?
Give up already, you have NOTHING but hearsay.
AND misjustice is NOT even a word!
The term is “A Miscarriage of Justice” dolt.
“Wasteside?” Do you mean wayside? Please, learn real English. I recommend reading good literature. Start with Ernest Hemingway. Hint: Glen Beck is not a real writer.
Yeah you get tired of Berg saying the same things yet when Mario and crew just repeat the same crap you eat it up
But the only person who want the case dismissed is Lakin.
You really should try to familiarize yourself with the rules of evidence, James.
James, let’s say, just for a second, that you’re right, and Obama is ineligible. Let’s further stipulate that the order came directly from Obama, and would be invalid if Obama did not hold the office. Obama would still hold the office under the de facto officer doctorine, and any orders that he gave would be valid (under normal rules). Therefore, Lakin would be guilty of disobeying a direct order, and being AWOL.
Now, let’s say that you’re wrong, and Obama is eligible. That means that Lakin is guilty of disobeying a direct order, and being AWOL.
Whether or not Obama is eligible has no effect on the final outcome of the case, and therefore not relevant. It’s like someone arguing that they didn’t kill someone because they were sleeping with their wife, but because they stole money from them.
The burden of proof is on those accusing Obama of being ineligible. Obama has to prove nothing further, and those who accuse him of being ineligible must prove, to a preponderance of the evidence, that Obama is not eligible.
Whether or not Lakin believed that Obama is ineligible is immaterial to the case, as it gives the same outcome on both sides. Whether or not Obama is ineligible is immaterial to the case. Only thing that matters is that Lakin knowingly disobeyed a direct order. Arguing that the order is not lawful because the President is ineligible is not going to fly in the court marshal. Unless the order is on it’s face facially unlawful (as it would be unlawful no matter if the president was eligible or ineligible), you will not be able to argue that the order was invalid.
I really feel for the JAG lawyer assigned to Lakin’s defense. There must be a head-shaped hole in his office from his banging his head against it as the stupidity of both Jensen and Lakin show through.
And Ft. Leavenworth is only 174 miles from Wichita, the birthplace of the President’s mom. Perhaps Lakin can get work detail cleaning up the roads there.
Glenn Beck, a junkie and alcoholic, is a latter day Father Coughlin.
From Mario’s site…It seems that he reads doc’s blog quite often….
“Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So”—Rhodes v. Obama (September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia).
The insults to our intelligence continue in Obotdom. Now, at Dr. Conspiracy’s website, they say that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii and that the issues of in what hospital and who was present at the time of the birth are irrelevant. That sounds like saying I have proven I am a millionaire but the issue of how much money I have is not relevant.
The Obot logic is amazing. Now they want us to accept their logic that Obama has conclusively proven thta he was born someplace (Honolulu) but the exact place where he was born (where in Honolulu) and those who were present to see him born in that exact place are irrelevant in testing whether the statement that he was born in Honolulu is true. How does one prove one was born someplace if one does not prove where in that place one was born and who was present to witness one being born there? How does one prove such a birth event occurred unless one produces evidence that someone was present to see the birth happen in a specific place? Surely, the Obots would not expect us to accept infant Obama himself as the witness to his own birth.
Again, we are told by Obama and his enablers that we are not talking about a person who may have been born in a non-institutional setting (house, barn, hut, field, etc.) with no records or information available to people who may later question whether that birth occurred as alleged. Rather, in Obama’s case, the evidence needed to answer my two questions (exact place of birth and who was present at birth) should be readily available given that he alleges he was born in a modern U.S. hospital only in 1961. So I say to the obots, either produce the simple evidence or simply admit to the truth that Obama has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii.
July 2, 2010 6:51 AM
And some more delusional rantings from Mario’s site….
Department of Energy Survey
I received a call last evening. Rutgers University was doing a survey on behalf of the DOE.
I usually don’t participate in surveys or polls. But, the pollster was friendly, and I was intrigued as to why the DOE needed to conduct a survey.
Well, about halfway into the survey the purpose of the survey became apparent… The survey was to gather data for the Obama propaganda machine so he can force Cap & Trade and Global Warming down our throats.
One of the questions I was asked had to do with whether the scientific community understood global warming.
Another question specifically asked me whether our society would be better served if the wealth was distributed more evenly.
Another question asked me whether wealthy people who earn their wealth should be entitled to keep it.
Needless to say, I informed the young pollster about the true intent behind the survey. She was open to listening to my opinion. Interestingly, and thankfully, she said that I wasn’t the first person who had expressed the same thing to her.
There is a Communist in the White House…
We the People are behind enemy lines…
July 1, 2010 11:31 AM
And from this brain dead idiot….
Obama confesses his citizenship is based on the faith of others, not blood or birth? Is anyone listening?
“Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,” Obama declared…
Or in others words…Obama is saying to all Americans:
“I don’t have a US Long Form birth certificate, my Kenyan Father was not an American, I probably wasn’t even born in America, and who cares…so long as YOU have the faith I am an American Citizen, that’s all it takes.”
Is that a fair summary of what he said?
Really? Now he openly admits it and flaunts his alien status as an “in your face” taunt? Does any one else take it that way, or what?
Can that statement of Obama’s be used with the judges to expedite the case?
July 1, 2010 11:31 PM
Well if you’re just trying to join the Millionaire’s Club and you’ve proved (say your Bank President signs a letter and it’s backed up by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve) that you’re a millionaire, how does it matter exactly how much money you have? One million is as good as 3 million. Inside the city limits of Honolulu is just good inside the county of Honolulu.
Let me show Mr. Apuzzo a little formal logic:
All persons born in Hawaii (since 1959) were born in the United States
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii since 1959
Therefore, Barack Obama was born in the United States.
That is a formally valid argument, and it does not require the name of any hospital.
All this diversion about proving eligibility to an ever-escalating set of requirements belies the fact that Obama is already President, and it obscures the fact that the birthers have no legally admissible evidence to the contrary.
Who do you hateful losers think you are anyway?
I and plenty of other people have taken that oath, understood its actual meaning, and honored it faithfully. That’s because we’re real patriots, not the kind of people like you, who spit on the military when it refuses to trash the Constitution for your pathetic fantasies.
LOL! Wow, what strange things “excite you” indeed.
So James, I’m sure you were really “excited” to receive the Appeals Court ruling in Kerchner v Obama, eh? How’s that Mario worship working for ya? LOL! Keep failing there James.
LOL! Wow, what strange things “excite you” indeed.
So James, I’m sure you were really “excited” to receive the Appeals Court ruling in Kerchner v Obama, eh? How’s that Mario worship working for ya? LOL! Keep failing there James.
LMAO! Someone should tell poor inept Mario what a birth certificate is and explain to him that is exactly what Obama’s certified HI COLB is. Mario just makes himself look like a bigger and bigger fool with every whiny rant.
I’m sure he spent a fortune on that collectible, life-size poster of Joseph Farah and Rush Limbaugh in thongs skipping down the beach together.
It may be just a rumor, but I read on the internet, that barnyard animals become skittish when Farah or Limbaugh are around.
Anyone else know if this is more than a rumor?
I wonder with the news that Jefferson intended that citizens be subjects will that change Mario’s mind regarding Vattel. I notice that none of the birthers have addressed this finding…Which is interesting since they loved the fact that supposedly George Washington never returned the “Law of Nations” book by Vattel….
Permalink Analysis confirms “subjects-citizens” change in Declaration
Would the spirit of the Declaration of Independence have been any different if it referred to Americans as “subjects” instead of “citizens?”
Thomas Jefferson apparently thought so, and recent analysis of a rough draft of the Declaration has confirmed speculation that he considered both before settling on “citizens.”
Recent hyperspectral imaging by scientists in the Library of Congress’ Preservation Research and Testing Division performed on Jefferson’s rough draft shows he originally wrote the phrase “our fellow subjects.” But he apparently changed his mind and heavily scrawled over the word “subjects” was the word “citizens.”
“The correction seems to illuminate an important moment for Jefferson and for a nation on the eve of breaking from monarchical rule – a moment when he reconsidered his choice of words and articulated the recognition that the people of the fledgling United States of America were no longer subjects of any nation, but citizens of an emerging democracy,” the Library of Congress said.
Hyperspectral imaging is the process of taking digital photos of an object using distinct portions of the visible and non-visible light spectrum, revealing what previously could not be seen by the human eye, according to the Library of Congress.
The correction occurs in the portion of the declaration that deals with U.S. grievances against King George III’s incitement of “treasonable insurrections,” according to the Library of Congress. The specific sentence is is not in the final draft, but a similar phrase stuck, and the word “citizens” is used elsewhere in the final document.
The word correction has been suspected for some time by scholars, according to the LOC. In “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1: 1760-1776,” Julian P. Boyd wrote “TJ originally wrote fellow-subjects,’ copying the term from the corresponding passage in the first page of the First Draft of the Virginia Constitution; then, while the ink was still wet on the Rough draught’ he expunged or erased subjects’ and wrote citizens’ over it.”
The theme of the speech was immigration and the celebration of the contribution that immigrants have made to America. A fair summary of what he said would be:
“Naturalized Citizens are just as American as Natural Born Citizens. This country was built by Americans who were not born in America working with Americans who were born in America to make life better for all Americans. That has not always been a smooth partnership, but it has always been a partnership.”
He was talking about the factual history of the American migration experience, the factual family history of 100% of the American population (and yes, I even include the ‘Native’ Americans, the Amerinds, because they migrated from Asia across the land bridge only a few thousand years ago).
At no point did the President address the issue of what constitutes a “Natural Born Citizen”, only what constitutes being “American”. He simply and accurately said that a Naturalized Citizen was just as American as a Natural Born Citizen.
It takes a really vile mind to reach the conclusion you have and allows you to distort the meaning of a speech honoring migrants, which your family history no doubt includes, to one of boastful insult to the electorate from whom he wants to continue to ask support.
A really vile mind. .
It’s even a sound argument.
A vile mind indeed.
Jefferson knew he used the wrong word even before the ink dried and chose another to more accurately describe his thoughts about how the American people should think about themselves.
What makes the discovery interesting is that point of self correction is possibly the exact tipping point of differentiation. Had he not chosen his words more carefully, it is possible that we would today still be arguing over the difference in what it means to be a ‘subject’ of a Republican form of Government or the ‘subject’ of a Monarchy. And there would undoubtedly be shelves and shelves full of case law about those differences.
Jefferson kindly relieved us of that problem and it is absolutely fascinating that the exact moment when he came to that realization has been identified. Such moments of personal vision are seldom made visible. There are precious few Archimedes jumping out of the bath and running naked down the street shouting “Eureka”, or Newtons watching an apple fall from a tree.
This discovery, contrary to you assertion, proves beyond doubt that Jefferson did not “intend for citizens to be subjects”, for if that were so, he would not have corrected himself. What it does do is shine a light on the ideation of a great man, and allows us to relate to his humanness that being revered as a ‘founding father’ tends to hide.
@Black Lion I just read back my two posts above. They were written in haste as I had to make a dental appointment (may the universe have mercy on me).
In retrospect, they now read to me like I was attacking you and your opinions, but please rest assured that that was NOT my intention.
The comments were intended to characterize the thought processes of those who twist these two very innocent and even inspirational events into somehow anti-Obama and anti-Jefferson.
I did not mean to imply in anyway that you were a member of that group, but as I read it back, I think I may well have left that impression.
I apologize for my inept wording.