The Awakening with Hanen & Arlen
3/10/2009 8:00 PM -- Streaming Link
Philip Berg will be our guest and we will be discussing Hollister v Soetoro and the arrogant memorandum US District Court Judge James Robertson issued. Also, did Obama's lawyers really say the original birth certificate could be embarrassing to Obama and the Democratic Party? Why is there so much obstruction in these cases against Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama?
Call-in Number, to listen, or press 1 to ask a question: (646) 727-2652
Upcoming Episodes
3/10/2009 1:00 PM - Truth Farmer with Doreen
3/11/2009 8:00 PM - Annie Got Her Gun with Annie and Greg
3/12/2009 3:30 PM - Sentinel Radio Presents MommaE Of MommaE Radio Rebels
3/12/2009 8:00 PM - Let Freedom Ring With John And Michelle
3/13/2009 8:00 PM - Call The Shrink With Sam And Bunny
Charles Kerchner, of the 'Kerchner et al v Obama et al' case and attorney Mario Apuzzo, will be on the "Let Freedom Ring" on the Sentinel Radio Network with hosts John and Michelle on Thursday, 12 March 2009, from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. EST. We will be providing an overview and update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and Mr Apuzzo will then take Q&A from the hosts John and Michelle via phone calls from the listening audience.
Archivals will be available, after the broadcasts.
Spread the news...
Arlen, I.O., Awakening in Twitter
Arlen, I.O., Awakening: Facebook
4 comments:
THE FIX has been in for a long time.
This is a Battle between the Constitutionalist Party and the Erosionist Party (btw most Republicans are Erosionists too).
When the Erosionist Party Bush refuses fo enforce existing immigration laws that is Erosionism.
When judges in Massachusettts find a marriage right that is NOT in the Constitution that is Erosionism.
When judges protect a killer BUT kill the unprotected that is Erosionism.
When we lower the mortgage lending guidelines to quiet some loud mouth Professional Protesters (ACORN and such) that is Erosionism.
When we elect and inaugurate a Fraud Riddled Unproven, Undocument, SELAED RECORDS, NON-NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to the Presidency not only is it Erosionism BUT CRIMINAL.
Lawsuits have to concentrate on The Forged COLB and Leo Donofrio’s strategy of not born to two citizens NOT NATURAL BORN, Period End of Story. There is plenty of Proof that he was only born to ONE citizen and a non-qualified one at that.
Attacking the person, especially a “sitting” President, is the wrong strategy and as we all know you can’t fight City Hall. Attack the evidence and documents provided can’t run away from the documents (FACTS). There are 2 documents experts that say the COLB is a Forgery. Challenge it in COURT. If Factcheck can have access to the COLB in “obama” Headquarters in Chicago access can’t be denied to the courts, the press, investigators, etc. Is there a Document Fairness Doctrine or equal access? Why only 2 guys from Factcheck who aren’t documents experts. Why no one from the Media NOT even NY Times?
That Factcheck picture with the shadow down the middle bothers the hack out of me. No other pic had a shadow. Why that one? Did they use TWO Documents?WERE THE CLOSE UPS TAKEN USING ANOTHER DOCUMENT? Is that SHADOW HIDING SOMETHING? Why a professional pic with a SHADOW?
The fix is in by the Erostionists but we the Constitutionalists are getting more organized, smarter & louder. One thing Erosionists are great at is making noise (professional protesters) but their downfall is they have sensitive ears. Let’s make some noise, they hear us loud and clear they are only pretending that they don’t hoping we will go away. Not this time, not today when the CONSTITUTION is in peril, HELL NO WE WON’T EVER GO AWAY.
Tea Party Anyone? Pitchfork Protests?
Arlen,
I would like to submit a question to Mr. Berg, if I may.
On February 4, 2009, Judge Robertson wrote in his Order that "The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed."
I read that order as a request from the judge, asking Berg and Joyce to contact the court and schedule a date with Judge Robertson. Not being an attorney, I'm not aware if this is common procedure, but it does sound like the judge wanted to meet Berg and Joyce before granting Hemenway's motion to admit them pro hac vice. On its face, that sounds like a reasonable request. Coming from a judge, I would expect that the attorneys would treat that request as something more than just a casual invitation.
In response, Berg's office filed a motion to vacate the Order, which reads, in part, that: "Plaintiff’s Counsels Brief and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and every response filed have been professional, with properly stated law, and should show his Honor that Philip J. Berg, Esquire and Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire are competent Attorneys warranting the granting of their Admission pro hac vice."
I read that as Berg stating that the briefs and memoranda he's filed with the court should be proof enough of Berg and Joyce's competence, and therefore meet the requirements of the Judge's Order.
Mr. Berg, my question is this: you, Joyce and Hemenway have argued that you are citing correct case law and making proper responses... in other words, that the motions you've filed demonstrate that you're doing a thorough, professional job of representing your client. Why did you choose to make that argument instead of accepting Judge Robertson's request to schedule a date to appear in his court?
Thank you.
Just call in, Victor!
If Berg is sincere in his attempts to bring King Obama to court then why are his lawsuits always riddled with inaccuracies and trip-ups and never get any better ?
His briefs start with being uninterested in the truth that the Founding Fathers understood that a natural born citizen must have two US citizen parents and be US born, proceed through mis-interpretations of US nationality law, and culminate with statements at variance with fact. And I'm going easy ! Read them and weep.
It is not suprising that Berg's lawsuits are thrown out of court with contempt. It would be hard to dream up a lawyer to oppose King Obama that could bring more ridicule and less credibility to the cause of constitutionality than one such as Phil Berg: his past associations alone have me squirming with embarrassment every time I hear them sneeringly tossed around to discredit both him and us.
Berg should be treated as a court jester. Often it seems he is of more value to King Obama than the many heroic Americans working to end his detestable criminal monarchy.
PdeB
Post a Comment