Phil Berg

Custom Search

  

  

Philip J. Berg, Esq.
 



help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.

Phil Berg's website -- ObamaCrimes.com

Democrat Files The First Lawsuit

On August 21st, 2008, Philip J. Berg, Esq. filed a federal lawsuit (.pdf) in federal court (Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.

Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Obama were served with a complaint and summons.  The DNC was served at noon and Obama was served at 1:00 p.m.  All Defendants have now been served so the case can proceed.

In his lawsuit, Berg stated that Senator Obama:

      

1. Is not a natural-born 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 said: "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."

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.

Details and artifacts here . . .

The Stonewall Begins
On September 10th, 2008, Phil J. Berg, Esq., filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery that requests court to make Obama and others provide evidence regarding whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen of the U. S.

Yesterday, in response, Obama filed a Motion to Dismiss:
    

DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA'S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for an order dismissing the Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying this Motion is a Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss and a proposed Order.

    
The Motion has not been Granted by the Court (at this time).

Faced with the lawsuit, the Obama camp had 2 options:

1.  Produce the required documentation establishing and proving that Obama is a "natural born" citizen, and that his citizenship was never relinquished and/or was re-established after he had moved with his mother to Indonesia.  Doing so would put this issue to rest in Pennsylvania, plus all of the other states and jurisdictions where this is being monitored; or ...

2.  File motions, obfuscate, advance obscure legal theories, push for dismissal, etc.

If the facts were on your side, which would you do?

Update:  (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/29/08)  Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he filed his Opposition and Brief to Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] Joint Motion to Dismiss in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg feels confident that he has "Standing" and the Court will allow the case to go forward.
Democratic National Committee Steps In
A Democrat suing his own party says it's "like they're in cahoots."

The man suing Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party -- rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks -- would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

Prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Phil J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president.  Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.

Berg said that the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away -- instead of just providing the documents -- the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.

"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama.  It doesn't make sense," Berg said.

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

Berg said, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."

When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained.  "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.

"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.

Read the whole thing . . .

Ask yourself, why doesn't Obama just make his birth certificate public and end this thing?  What could he possibly be hiding?
Particularly Serious Embarrassment
People forget that Obama’s lawyers have already admitted that whatever is in Obama’s bona fides would, "cause a defined and serious injury" to Obama and/or the DNC.  During the Federal Circuit Court ruling on Phil Berg’s claim, Judge, R. Barclay Surrick, ruled that any objection or refutation had to be served within thirty days.

The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order.  In these motions, Obama’s lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, college admissions records etc.) would "cause a defined and serious injury" to Obama and/or the DNC.  They argued that revealing these documents raises a "legitimate privacy concern" and the above mentioned risk that "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation."

The source of that embarrassment was not specified.  That’s why Obama fights the release of his bona fides -- "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation." -- his own attorneys said so.
Obama Hires CAIR's Lawyer
The lawsuit, filed by Philip Berg in federal court has taken a bizarre and disturbing twist.  Rather than just producing a birth certificate proving his eligibility for the office of POTUS, Obama has filed a motion to dismiss.

Of the 1,143,358 resident and active attorneys in the United States, Obama selected Joe Sandler, of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young to represent him in this filing.

Sandler is the legal hit-man for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Sandler's role for CAIR has been to intimidate people who dare to expose the goals and actions of Islamofascists.  For example, last year he tried to get Jihad expert Robert Spencer banned from speaking to the Young American Foundation by using a threatening letter.  Sandler followed up by threatening columnist Mike Adams for writing about the Spencer incident.

The question is, why would a guy who wants to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief select a lawyer with terrorist connections to represent him in a law suit?

This is just another of those "guilt by associations" that Obama dismisses as a "distraction" and the mainstream media chooses to ignore.

Is there anybody around Obama that doesn't hate this country?
Berg Amends

Phil J. Berg filed an amended complaint today in Berg v. Obama.  The amended complaint adds the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes (in his official capacity), the U. S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senator Diane Feinstein (in her official capacity as chairman) for their failure to exercise due diligence with respect to Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications to be elected and serve as President of The United States, and for his inclusion on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a candidate for President of the United States.

The amended complaint also bolsters the standing argument and adds additional relevant facts.

Essentially, the argument is this:

      

•  Senator Obama could put this whole issue to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate.
•  Senator Obama has chosen not to do so.
•  The defendants (other than Obama) have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral system.
•  Mr. Berg, other Americans, and our system of government are damaged by this failure.
•  Senator Obama, who has collected $425,000,000 in campaign contributions, has perpetrated a fraud.

    

Following are some of the factual statements made in the amended complaint (The complete complaint is at link).

Berg's Outrage
Update to previous item.

Berg is "Outraged" that Obama & DNC Hide Again Behind Legal Issues as their attorney files a Motion for Protective Order to "not" Answer Admissions & Production of Documents while Betraying Public in not Producing Documents proving Obama is "qualified" to be a candidate for President.

The Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis.

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/06/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08.

While legal, Berg stated he is "outraged as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President.

Why won't Obama produce a birth certificate and end this?
Rule 36
And here's the latest in the Berg lawsuit:

According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request.  Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery.  The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.

Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:

A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and

A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is "damning."

Still, for Berg, the issue is clear.  He simply wanted answers or objections, he said, and instead received nothing.  Rule 36, according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.

"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg said.  "The admissions are there.  By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything.  He admits he was born in Kenya.  He admits he was adopted in Indonesia.  He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony.  And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
Berg Suit Dismissed
Lawsuit against Obama dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court.

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday.  Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Details here

We have a looming constitutional crisis, like it or not, potentially as great as that of the Election of 1860.

The judge did not say Obama is eligible or ineligible.  He said eligibility is not relevant, under the law, at this point.  Surrick’s dismissal specifically applies to conditions prior to the election and is procedural in nature.

It says nothing of the very different legal conditions that apply after the election, should Obama win.  Technically, Surrick is correct when he rules you can't sue for an injury that hasn't happened.

Obama can't be sued unless he wins the election.  Of course, he won't lose another suit because, after the election, he would have the power of millions and millions and millions of voters who would take to the streets to defend their choice -- and some of those people love confrontation.
Berg Goes All-In!
Obama citizenship question goes to U.S. Supreme Court.

The former deputy Pennsylvania attorney general who challenged Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's qualifications to be president has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lafayette Hill, Pa.-based attorney Philip Berg, a self-described "moderate to liberal" Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, alleged that the Illinois senator is not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency.

His lawsuit was dismissed Friday by U.S. District Judge Richard Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1.  At that time, Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied.  They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.

"I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate," says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer.  "They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution.  Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution.  The Court is very jealous of its power -- even over presidents, even over presidents-elect."

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes.  If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.
Hollister V. Soetoro: Defendant Motion To Dismiss
Phil Berg just received a copy of the Motion to Dismiss in Hollister v. Soetoro.  Aside from the usual defensive arguments, Robert Bauer's footnotes are very telling:

Regarding Berg’s claim of ineligibility:

1.  President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, "Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate," available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).  Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."  See "Certified," Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008.  This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports.  See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Citing similarity with other lawsuits…

2.  Lawsuits have been filed in at least 10 states claiming that either President Obama or the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, is not a "natural born citizen."  All of the cases that have proceeded to judgment have been found to be improper and have been quickly dismissed.  See, e.g., Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709, 713 (Conn. 2008) (dismissing case regarding Obama for lack of statutory standing and subject matter jurisdiction); Stamper v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for lack of jurisdiction); Roy v. Federal Election, 2008 WL 4921263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for failure to state a claim); Marquis v. Reed, Superior Court Case No. 08-2-34955 SEA (Wash. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain on standing grounds); In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in PA., 944 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2008); Lightfoot v. Bowen, Supreme Court Case No. S168690 (Cal. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (denying Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition and Stay regarding Obama); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d, 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain for lack of standing and lack of a state court remedy); Constitution Party v. Lingle, 2008 WL 5125984, at *1 (Haw. Dec. 5, 2008) (unpublished) (dismissing election contest challenging Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 victory); Martin v. Lingle, Supreme Court Case No. 08-1-2147 (Haw. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (rejecting original writ petition regarding Obama on several grounds); Cohen v. Obama, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama on standing grounds); Donofrio v. Wells, Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the New Jersey Appellate Division (N.J. 2008).
Use of interpleader statute:

3.  Even if plaintiff’s use of interpleader were not illegitimate on its face, the complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  In an interpleader action, there must be adverse claimants to the property in plaintiff’s possession so that plaintiff risks multiple or inconsistent liability with respect to the property.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (stating interpleader is proper if "[t]wo or more adverse claimants . . . are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to any one or more of the benefits arising by virtue of any note, bond, certificate, policy or other instrument, or arising by virtue of any such obligation[.]") (emphasis added); 7 Wright, Miller & Kane § 1705 ("A prerequisite for permitting interpleader is that two or more claimants must be ‘adverse’ to each other. This requirement is not met when one of the claims clearly is devoid of substance, or . . . liability is groundless[.]").

Here, not only is the claim clearly devoid of substance, but plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that defendants are adverse claimants. He offers only speculation on this point. See Dkt. #1 at ¶52. He also concedes that it is mere conjecture that there may be more than one claimant. See Dkt. #1 at ¶39. In addition, plaintiff has failed to make any showing regarding the likelihood that a claim on his "property" will ever be made. See supra, at 5 (quoting Dkt. #1 at ¶34, ¶40, ¶44, ¶47).

In short, no matter how the complaint is construed, plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for relief. See Smith, 544 F. Supp. 2d at 16 ("The facts alleged in the complaint . . . must be sufficient ‘to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’") (quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974); see also 7 Wright, Miller & Kane §1705 ("[I]nterpleader is inappropriate when the claims not only are remote in time but actually fall below any meaningful threshold level of substantiality."). His claim must be dismissed.
I will once again note that any time the opposition of a question provides reasoning for their argument, it’s very useful to study it out to find out exactly why things have gone, or are going, the way they are.
No More Bamboozling, Hoodwinking, And Doing The Okie Dokie
Army Ranger.com reports that Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted.  SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

Note:  This is the second case that has made it to SCOTUS.  Phil Berg (PA) is Docket No. 08-570 and Leo Donofrio (NJ) is Docket No. 08A407.  Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keys also has a case in the California Superior Court and Chicago muckraker Andy Martin has one going in Hawaii Superior Court.  There's approximately another dozen making their way through the courts in other states.  Each case makes different arguments, but all are challenging Obama's eligibility.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judicial discretion based upon a compelling reason.  That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen…" (Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution).

What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008, Obama must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama’s place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.

In all of these cases, the inevitable constitutional crisis regarding president-elect Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic, vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate, complete with signatures and with the raised certificate stamp, that can be used verify Obama's eligibility or ineligibility for the office.

Note:  If my grandson had to present a birth certificate to prove his eligibility to play Pop Warner football, it is not unreasonable that Obama present his to prove his eligibility for the role of Commander-in-Chief.

Here are some, but not all of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of Obama and the question of his eligibility:

• The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship (after all, Grandma Sarah continues to claim she was in the delivery room);

• The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as an adopted child of an Indonesian citizen, and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain his American citizenship (a foreign adoption will do that to your children -- be careful who you marry ladies);

• The allegation that Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen (comprehensive and irrefutable evidence of this counterfeit document will be on this page within the next few days);

• The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president (Obama admits on his own website that he was a Kenyan citizen at birth -- this AUDIO is just in -- the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States says that "it is already well known" that Obama was born in Kenya (start listening at 12:00 minutes into audio) );

• The allegations that Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya.  Reports reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth (Hawaii's laws allows an amended birth certificate be filed by the parents of children born in a foreign country, so Obama could have been born anywhere and still have an amended Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii.);

• The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public (not to mention that there are reports naming two different hospitals where Obama was born.);

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate.  Since Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen, who adopted her son,  and moved the family to Indonesia, the suit claims she forfeited both her and Barack’s American citizenship.

And, let's hope that Justice Souter read the riot act to his clerk, Danny Bickell, who has tried his best to sabotage these lawsuits.
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved