renewableenergy

Obama Federal Lawsuit Obama Be Removed as a Candidate No. 08-cv-4083

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:55:15 +0200

Obama Federal Lawsuit Obama Be Removed as a Candidate No. 08-cv-4083
For Immediate Release: - 08/21/08
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire Suit Filed
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 08/21/08
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005 No. 08-cv-4083
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@gmail.com
Philip J. Berg, Esq. Files Federal Lawsuit
Requesting Obama
Be Removed as a Candidate as he does not meet the
Qualifications for President
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 08/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a
former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and
U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in
Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with
offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a
lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking
a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to
Z\\FORMS\PressReleaseObama08212008 2
be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the
Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama:
1. Is not a naturalized citizen; and/or
2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or
3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and
Indonesia.
Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that
will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.
There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no
satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:
1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya;
Canada; or ?
2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?
3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in
Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?
4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that
include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack
Dunham; and Barry Dunham.
5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names
other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.
If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship
with responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries.
Z\\FORMS\PressReleaseObama08212008 3
Berg continued:
“Eighteen million Democratic Primary voters donated money, volunteered their
time and energy, worked very hard and then not only supported Senator Clinton, but
voted for her and often recruited other supporters as well. All the efforts of supporters of
legitimate citizens were for nothing because this man lied and cheated his way into a
fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from
competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination.
Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by
Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations. He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his
actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of
citizenship. We believe he does know, supported this belief by his actions in hiding his
secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his
position as a natural born citizen. We would also show he proclaims himself a
Constitutional scholar and lecturer, but did not learn he had no eligibility to become
President except by means of lying, obfuscations and deceptions. His very acts proves he
knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the
country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?
Americans lost money, goods and services donated in their support of a candidate
who supposedly was a natural born citizen simply because the DNC officers and party
leaders looked the other way and did not demand credentials to answer the questions and
prove whether or not Senator Obama was a legitimately natural born citizen, even in light
of recent information that has surfaced on websites on the Internet suggesting Senator
Obama may not be eligible to become President and questioning his status of multiple
citizenships and questionable loyalties! If the DNC officers and.or leaders had
performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency
predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their
citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship
through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws!
Z\\FORMS\PressReleaseObama08212008 4
The injunctrive relief must be granted because failing to do so, this inaction
defrauds everyone who voted in the Democratic Primary for a nominee that is a fair
representation of the voters. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a corrupted,
fraudulent nomination process to continue. It not only allows, but promotes an
overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the
primary process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential
candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the
Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto
the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get
elected! It is unfair to the country for candidates of either party to become the nominee
when there is any question of their ability to serve if elected.
All judges are lawyers and held to a higher standard of practice than a regular
lawyer. It is this Judicial standard that demands injunctive relief prayed for here. This
relief is predicated upon one of the most basic premises of practicing law which states no
lawyer can allow themselves to be used in furthering a criminal enterprise. And by that
gauge alone, failing to give injunctive relief to the 18 million supporters of the other
candidate, a true natural born citizen eligible to serve if elected, this court must not allow
itself to be used to further the criminal and fraudulent acts to continue and be rewarded
by becoming the Democratic Nominee. Failure to give the injunctive relief prayed for
will insure that a corrupted Presidential election process will only guarantee a show of
unfair preference of one group of people over another group by not demanding the same
rules be applied to all groups equally and fairly, especially in light of the fact that both
candidates are each considered a minority.
# # #
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to
obamacrimes.com

Comments

American economy in crises - a long time coming

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:17:10 +0200

American economy in crises - a long time coming

When a country and its society import more than they export for over a quarter of a century, it is bound to erod the economy to its primate state.

We have only ourselves to blame, what goods and products are we exporting, what goods and services are produced in the USA, the answer is very little by comparison.

In the past 50 years as our population has increased, technology advanced, we have become a nation that consumes enormous amounts of resources, we shop for competitive prices. Corporate America is constantly looking to increase the bottom line.

Most of the goods for and by Americans and its companies are produced overseas and in the past decade with the advancement of telecommunications, many of the services sector are also imported.

The increased costs of energy over the past 10 years, has affected the economy to unimaginable comprehension.

This economic activity has eroded our economy to its core. It seems that the situation is getting worse every year. American debts are increasing beyond our wildest dreams, endangering the future economic vitality of our future generation.

I hope it is not too late for our society to recognize the graveness of our economic predicament and its resolve to take appropriate action to stem the tide of our economic downturn.

Americans are a nation of great technology and knowhow. We must utilize that technology and our resources to find new means to regain our economic independence.

We must face and implement fiscal responsibility, both by the government and the population with its infrastructure of corporate America.

It is no longer an option, it is a must if we as a nation want to survive and retain our way of life and economic vitality.

Inflation, recession and financial crises are here. Let us take the bull by the horn, initiate immediate actions to minimize and hopefully reverse our economic crises.

Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA.

PS
The US economy has enormous momentum. Metaphorically speaking, if someone turned off the locomotive that drives the US economy, the economy would go on for miles before anyone would likely notice something was wrong. But something has been wrong for many years. Is there really hope for the future? Maybe. But the terrible truth is that no one really knows. But if there is hope, we're already on the wrong track. And that has to change..

Comments

Unauthorized Charges on Your Local Phone - Utility Bill?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:08:27 +0200

Unauthorized Charges on Your Local Phone - Utility Bill?
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All Utility - Energy, gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.
If you suspect that you have been overcharged ask for detailed explanation and or file a complaint with your State Utility Commission.
Compiled by: Jay Draiman, Utility Auditor

Comments

The Survival of Humankind, and Improving the World, Society, and Yourself!

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:29:42 +0100

The Survival of Humankind, and Improving the World, Society, and Yourself!

Yet who can the world trust to be idealistic and moral enough to help all of humanity and the environment, and at the same time, be practical enough to make extremely difficult decisions that can and will harm a great deal of people?

Humanitism is a philosophy for the continued survival and perpetuation of the human race. Humanitists (people who believe in humanitism) do not have the luxury of trying again after failing. Humanitists must be more vigilant than environmentalists, because we will not have a second chance at survival.

The survival of humanity is more important than the well being of our environment; however the environment is necessary for humanity to survive. That does not give the right for big businesses to continue doing whatever they want with only minimal or no consideration for the environment, so long as our surroundings support human life. We need to protect the environment for the continued survival and future well being of humanity. Keep in mind that without the human race, there would be no one and no need to protect the environment. Therefore, humanitism is more important than environmentalism.

It seems that in the past 50 years the human race has pursued the money train, that such desire for financial gain has caused society to ignore and abandon honesty, values, morality and candidness etc.

The race to financial gain has caused our leaders and the executives of the corporate world to disregard laws, ethics and the caring for each other and humanity as a whole. Deception, fraud and outright theft are their new motto all for the sake of financial gain, personal ego, fame and success.

It seems that for the sake of success and profit people will step on anybody, family friends, co-workers and anyone who stands in their way or take advantage of anyone that could help them achieve what they want.

That is not to say that honest and compassionate people who care do not exist, where honesty and integrity is a way of life for them, but they are a very small minority.

As we begin the year 2008, we should all look at the past and decide with determination that everyone will from now on contribute to the betterment of humanity, society and mankind.

We should all learn to live with each other and respect each other for the sustainability of mankind. Humanity should strive for harmony, tranquility and peace

Compiled by: Yehuda Draiman – 3/3/2008

PS
The human survival instinct prods us to outlast afflictions and, if circumstances permit, to reach old age. Nothing, of course, could be more quintessentially natural than aging.

Comments

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ECONOMICS:

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:22:49 +0100

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ECONOMICS:

What You Need to Know

Using sophisticated financial modeling to make the most-informed decisions when upgrading multi-tenant office buildings

In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted a review of all of the office buildings that had used its online Energy Star benchmarking system (www.energystar.gov).

A startling statistic came to light: The lowest-scoring buildings used four times as much energy as the highest-scoring ones. Granted, the buildings with the highest scores were extremely energy-efficient. Still, the gulf between them and the lowest-scoring buildings makes one wonder about the magnitude of energy wasted in this country.

The benchmarked buildings included both income-producing and owner-occupied properties.

One might expect income-producing properties to take energy efficiency more seriously than their owner-occupied counterparts because lower energy costs imply higher net operating income (NOI), the mother’s milk of real-estate investors.

However, too many income properties continue to have very inefficient building systems for a variety of reasons: “lowest-first-cost” decision-making, dysfunctional owner/tenant dynamics, and popular myths that lead owners and managers to ignore or reject worthwhile energy upgrades.

If you were to ask a roomful of income-property owners and managers if improved energy efficiency could make their buildings more profitable, competitive, and valuable, most, if not all, probably would say yes. Pose the same question to a roomful of engineers, vendors, and consultants, and most probably also would say yes. However, only those who understood leasing and real estate finance would be able to support their yes with compelling mathematics.

To make the most-informed decisions when selecting energy projects to approve, it is vital to know how a property’s leases might allocate energy savings between the owner and the tenants (see the sidebar “Understanding the Basic Types of Leases”), how much the tenants would be obligated to contribute toward the cost of an expense-reducing capital project, how the owner’s share of savings could boost NOI, and how a higher NOI could support an increase in appraised value. Clearly, replacing myth with math goes a long way toward better decision-making regarding energy throughout the life cycle of a typical income property.

This article offers new time- and cost-effective best practices for analyzing the merits of proposed energy-efficiency upgrades to multi-tenant; income-producing office properties (see the sidebar “Huge Potential in Office Sector”). Keep in mind that, as with most analytical approaches, the “devil is in the details.” The ultimate value of this analysis depends on many factors, such as the reliability of projected costs and savings and the volatility of utility prices. Moreover, unless energy-saving equipment is properly installed, intelligently operated, periodically re-commissioned, and otherwise well maintained, any predicted savings may prove elusive. In multi-tenant buildings, other devilish details, such as disturbances associated with installations, can be important as well. Fortunately, knowing about each of these issues is the first step in addressing them. Each year, countless energy-saving projects are successfully implemented in income properties because the right questions were asked and answered at the right time.

WHO PAYS? WHO BENEFITS?

Before you can quantify the value of improved energy efficiency in a leased property, you need to evaluate carefully who will pay for the improvement and who will benefit from it (see the sidebar “Calculating the Owner’s Share of Savings”). Only then can you take the next step: determining how those savings might drive improved profitability, competitiveness, and value.

Take the example of an income producing office building. If the operating expenses are lowered, the owner, the tenant(s), or both will realize the savings, depending on the expense sharing provisions of the leases and certain other factors. The portion of the savings that goes to the owner will increase NOI, which, in turn, could improve the appraised value of the building when it is refinanced or sold.

Meanwhile, the improved comfort and convenience that often accompany energy-efficiency upgrades may help with tenant retention and attraction. The portion of the savings captured by the tenant will lower occupancy cost, which will improve the tenant’s ability to pay rent. The combination of energy savings and the improved look/feel of the space may make the tenant more interested in renewing the lease.

The moral of the story: It does little good for engineers to focus on kilowatts, kilowatt-hours, simple payback period (SPP), and other commonly used metrics to describe and evaluate projects if they forget to consider other vital issues, such as who would pay for the upgrade, who would benefit, and the downstream effects of the projected energy savings.

WINNING STRATEGIES NEED - WINNING MECHANISMS

According to Jim Collins, internationally known management expert, even the best strategies will fail without well conceived mechanisms for executing them. If you are serious about saving as much energy as possible:

• Have you adopted best practices for finding, evaluating, and approving expense-reducing capital projects for your properties?

• Do you apply these best practices on a systematic, portfolio-wide basis so that you know you are focusing your limited time and capital on the most promising upgrade opportunities at all times?

• Are you on the lookout for rebates and other incentives (tax credits) so you can be sure you are not missing “free money” (see the sidebar “The Money Is Out There”) that could help you improve your properties?

• In the case of income-producing properties, does every proposed expense reducing capital project include a financial analysis of who would pay for the improvement, which would get the savings, and how that allocation of costs/savings might influence the owner’s total return?

• If you are an engineer, a vendor, a contractor, or a consultant advising a client on opportunities to improve energy efficiency, do your analyses go beyond SPP and consider the impact of the estimated energy savings on your client’s business?

These are just some of the questions that need to be answered with a yes if you want your winning strategies to have a positive impact on the bottom line. Applying energy-saving strategies to properties and projects becomes more practical if you keep a few key lessons in mind:

Expense-reducing capital projects must be positioned properly to compete for two precious commodities: time and money.

There is only so much “management bandwidth” to select and pursue initiatives. Similarly, there is only so much capital to fund even the best projects. Staff cutbacks and the current economy have only tightened these two constraints.

Whether you work with owner-occupied or income-producing property, can you honestly say that energy-saving projects compete effectively for the owner’s time and money? Might there be ways to raise the perceived importance of energy projects so that they receive the attention they deserve?

Does your organization need to grow its income properties’ NOI and asset value? Could low-risk, high-return expense-reducing capital improvements to your existing portfolio provide “internal growth” that would offset the present lack of opportunities for “external growth” (i.e., building or buying additional properties)?

If you are a vendor or service provider, do you understand your prospect’s business well enough to position your offerings as being more compelling than whatever else may be distracting the decision-makers?

Finding the opportunities that most deserve a share of that finite time and capital requires a systematic, portfolio-wide approach.

This implies that (1) all decision-making criteria are clearly listed and prioritized; (2) the building portfolio is systematically screened for these criteria in the order of least to most expensive to study; (3) the decision-making chain is well-defined, and each stakeholder in that chain understands not only his own goals, objectives, and responsibilities, but those of the stakeholders directly above and below him; (4) all of the costs and benefits are analyzed; and (5) the cost/benefit analysis is communicated in a language that all stakeholders can understand.

When it comes to devising a strategy for pursuing energy savings, have all of the decision-makers agreed on which criteria make projects the most compelling?

If you are working with a large, geographically dispersed building portfolio, has a top-level screening of all buildings been performed so that the top projects worth pursuing can be ranked?

Is there a well-defined decision chain from the person with the authority to approve the project down to the frontline person charged with finding/evaluating the opportunities?

Are the downstream benefits of improved energy efficiency fully understood by the individuals preparing the proposals? Do these individuals know how to quantify the positive impact reduced operating expenses have on NOI and appraised value? What about the positive effect lower operating expenses can have on tenant retention and attraction?

Do they realize that lower operating expenses may allow the owner to set lower expense stops for leases signed after the upgrade is completed?

Do you find your engineers trying to convince senior management to fund energy upgrades with elaborate analyses calibrated in kilowatt-hours, therms, or other decidedly non-financial language?

If you are an income-property owner, wouldn’t it be great if your energy-service company took the time to translate projected energy savings into benefits that you consider when making other capital decisions?

If you get the right answers by asking the wrong questions, you are just lucky.

So many building owners, property managers, and vendors/contractors are guilty of placing too much emphasis on SPP. This mistake is particularly egregious in the case of income properties.

If you own/manage a multi-tenant office building, which do you think is more important to know: the SPP of a project or who would get the savings—the owner or the tenant(s)? Would it surprise you to learn that, depending on the leases in place, a four-year SPP project may be a more profitable investment than a two-year SPP project when viewed from the owner’s perspective (Figure 3)?

How do you feel about your project being judged solely on the merits of its SPP, with financial benefits realized after the SPP ignored?

In the absence of math, decisions often are governed by myths. Do not let fiction fill the vacuum left by a lack of facts. Blindly accepted myths and inappropriately applied “rules of thumb” play a major role in the continued waste of energy in this country. When selecting projects to fund, you need to know the facts. Who pays? Who benefits? You need access to tools that deliver actionable information automatically. If your financial analysis requires an impractical level of time and effort, it will not get done, especially if you need to see multiple scenarios before approving a project. If your people lack the time or skills to perform and present these calculations, you should consider outsourcing the financial analysis to someone who has Automated the number-crunching.

In the case of a multi-tenant building, are the people who approve/reject capital expenses the same people who signed the existing leases? If not, have they at least read the leases lately? How much of the energy cost is paid by the owner? How much of the projected upgrade’s savings would inure to the landlord on a tenant-by-tenant, month-by-month basis? Can the owner assess tenants for capital?

Improvements that reduce operating expenses for tenants?

If you are an engineer recommending an energy-saving capital project for a multi-tenant building, have you detailed the costs/savings of the project on a tenant-by-tenant and common-area basis? Do you know how much of the projected savings will inure to the owner and how much capital cost could be assigned to the tenants according to the terms of the existing leases? Do you have a best practice of including a leasing analysis in every proposal you present to multi-tenant building owners/managers?

See the sidebar “Winning Strategies, Winning Mechanisms” for three sets of strategies and mechanisms you might want to consider adopting.
Compiled by: Yehuda Draiman

Comments