“Obama Conundrum: If a total stranger can do it, then why not Obama?” Phil Berg v Barack Obama


“Conundrum in Bronze”

U.S. State Department Subpoena Request Denial Letter Turns Up in Court, and Setting the Record Straight on Internet Rumor”


One of the letters attached to Berg’s Opposition and supporting Brief turned up in the court today. I thought it was new — apparently, even I haven’t been reading close enough. Here’s the deal, anyway, for those who missed the boat like me:

In a letter from David Newman of the Office of Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of State dated September 24, 2008, Berg’s attempted service of subpoena on the Vital Records Section of the State Department and a pair of U.S. embassies was rejected.

While I did not originally know, due in part to some problems with the court’s computer system, about this letter and the request denial, I’ve known for a few weeks now that Phil Berg intended to subpoena several entities with regard to documentation sought to support his allegations in his federal case against Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission.

I find it amazing that the State Department is asking for Berg to include written authorization from Obama for release of any records (though it admittedly is law under the Privacy Act), and find it equally amazing that they spelled Barack Obama’s name wrong.


I’ve received a number of e-mails and messages stating that the judge has decided on the matter, all linking to the PDF copy of an official court document.

The document in question is a PROPOSED ORDER. It is not a decision by the court, but rather a procedural mechanism included with motions to essentially “assume the sale,” to provide the judge with a place to theoretically sign off and decide in favor of the filing party.

… there has been no decision by Judge Surrick. If there is, you will be among the first to know, as I am plugged in enough at the courthouse to see such an order as soon as it comes down from the judge’s chambers.

See also:


Obama Conundrum: If a total stranger can do it, then why not Obama?


… here’s the conundrum:

How is it that a total stranger to me (named Michele) can send me eight, high quality scans of BOTH SIDES of her COLB, and also ask Hawaii to print off another paper COLB and send it just to me,


Obama cannot, or will not, produce even a second COLB scan OF THE REVERSE SIDE WHERE ALL THE STAMPS ARE PLACED, let alone show the real paper original to a neutral third party, or even in response to a lawsuit?

if the first scan was really made from the FRONT SIDE ONLY of a genuine, original COLB, then there’s no reason on earth not to show the original, or not even to show a second scan of it,

EXCEPT for the inescapable conclusion that the one, and only one, COLB image is a forgery.

Fight The Smears changed their web page which displayed their smaller copy of it, by putting in the following lead-in line:

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

We never said that Obama “doesn’t have a birth certificate.” We all have a birth certificate, but we also do not substitute a forged image in place of that piece of paper.

What we are saying is that Obama is absolutely NOT a natural born citizen, and

If Obama really was born in Kenya, then, “O, Yeah,” he would not have that piece of paper called a “US birth certificate.”

Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

Obama Birth Certificate

%d bloggers like this: