Philip J. Berg, Esq.
|Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery.
Phil Berg's website --
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
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
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
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
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
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
ruled that any objection or refutation had to be served within
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
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.
|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
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
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?
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
• 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
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
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?
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
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
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."
|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.
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
|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
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
"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
|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:
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,"
(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.
Citing similarity with other lawsuits…
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
• 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
• 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 --
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