Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

October 23, 2008

The Coming Constitutional Crisis

by Chris Byrne

The following motion was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 22nd, and entered earlier today.

This is an amended filing from the earlier motions (as is clear from the text); based on the state of the case as of the 22nd.

Earlier, the Obama campaign filed a motion to dismiss, and a motion to prevent discovery. Neither of these motions have been granted.

The Obama campaign has not filed substantive responses to Bergs motions and assertions; and has missed several deadlines.

Theoretically, by the rules of civil procedure, the judge has to rule in favor of the plaintiff, unless he finds the plaintiffs motions have no merit (or that he cannot hear the case due to jurisdictional defect, or lack of standing on the part of the plaintiff); however the judge could decide to dismiss, or to hear the case instead.

Also, the plaintiff has requested a jury trial if summary judgement is not entered; and the Obama campaign failed to respond to this request; so if the judge decides not to enter summary judgement and instead hear the case, he is again required by civil procedure to order a hearing before a jury.

Judges have a lot of leeway within the rules, but if they decide to do something outside of normal practice that leaves a lot of room for appeal. I’ve looked at this judges rules for civil procedure (judges can set their own rules to a certain extent) and he is a hardcore stickler for the rules.

The Obama campaign clearly thought the judge wasn’t going to take this case seriously, and that they could either get it dismissed our of hand, or delayed until after the election.

It seems clear now this isn’t going to happen.

At this point, the Obama campaigns only response is to claim jurisdictional defect and lack of standing. They are saying that the court can’t hear the case, and that even if they could, Berg can’t bring the case. Their grounds for such assertions are weak at best.

Read the filings. If you don’t believe me, go log in to P.A.C.E.R. and look at the totality of the case. Berg has affadavits from Obamas grandmother, officials from the Kenyan ministry of state, officials from the hospital he is alleging Obama was born in…

This is going to be messy. Even if the case is dismissed by jurisdictional or standing defect, it will simply be refiled immediately by someone who has standing (that shouldn’t be hard to find) in the proper jurisdiction.

This isn’t going away.

Whether the allegations are true or not, by not taking this case seriously, Obama is in trouble.

UPDATE:

Understand, I am making no claims as to the validity of the case; only that it has not been dismissed, and the Obama campaign is treating it as if it already has been.

I’m inclined to think if the judge were going to summarily dismiss the case, he would have done so before Oct. 21st.

I have a feeling the judge will at least have a hearing on jurisdiction and standing.

If the Obama campaign address this only as a jurisdictional issue, or a standing issue, it’s going to come back.

Right now, the Obama campaign isn’t even arguing the merits of the case; and if they DON’T get it dismissed on the merits, the exact same allegations and information are going to be used to file cases from now, until he is out of office presuming he is elected.

I’ve spent the last three years arguing a federal case, responding to motions and appeals with no merit. Because our opponent had even the slightest validity in his cause of action, it was strongly advised BY THE JUDGE, that we respond to all motions in a timely manner; even though we had a motion to dismiss pending the entire time (it was eventually granted).

Until this case is heard on the merits, and dismissed on the merits, I think it’s going to be a MAJOR issue for Obama; even after the election, whether he is elected or not.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv-04083

Plaintiff :

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, ::

vs.

Defendants :

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, ::

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.
Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Having reviewed the Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P.
56(c) is GRANTED.

This Court Declares Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.

The Democratic National Committee is hereby enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and both the Democratic National
Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning
on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.

It is an ORDER of this Court that Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.

BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 27

It is further ORDER of this Court; Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $48,300.00,
representing all fees and costs associated with this suit to date.

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________

Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
United States District Court Judge
For the Eastern District of PA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

Plaintiff : PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, ::

vs. :

Defendants :

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, ::

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within Motion
for Summary Judgment and Brief in support thereof and moves this Court for an Order granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff and against Defendant’s, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and The Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter “DNC”] on all Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c) on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiff served Discovery by way of Requests for Admissions and
Request for Production of Documents upon Defendants, Obama
and DNC, on September 15, 2008.

2. Although Defendants, Obama and DNC, filed a Motion for a
Protective Order staying all discovery pending the Court’s decision
on a Motion to Dismiss, Defendants failed to serve Plaintiff with
any Answers and/or Objections to the Requests for Admissions
Served upon each Defendant, Obama and DNC. To date, the
Court has never issued any Protective Orders.

3. Failure to Answer or Object to Requests for Admissions within
thirty [30] days deems the Request for Admissions “Admitted,”
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c).

4. Since the Requests for Admissions are now deemed Admitted,
there are not any genuine issues of material facts remaining and
Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against Defendants, Obama and
the DNC, as a matter of law.

5. To date, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, has expended
considerable time in pursuing this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff
requests counsel fees and costs. In the amount of $48,300.00.
WHEREFORE, for the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg,
Esquire, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment against Defendants, Obama and the DNC as to all his claims and award counsel fees and costs to Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire in the amount of
$48,300.00.

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

Plaintiff :

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE ::

vs. :

Defendants : BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL :

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, THE DNC AND OBAMA

A. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party.

Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the
United States Constitution.

Plaintiff and many other citizens of the United States have donated money and time to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee, in reliance on promises and assurances made by the DNC in the Democratic Party Agenda. It provides that the Democrat Party’s goals, among others, are to “restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government”, to “restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans” and to “uphold the Constitution.”

To uphold the Constitution includes making sure that the Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair and legitimate campaign.

In vetting the Presidential candidate the DNC and FEC are required to ensure the
eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential
candidate, if elected, would be eligible to serve as President.

To be eligible and qualified to run for and/or serve for Office of the President of the United States a person must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

The natural born citizen clause has prohibited many prominent Americans from becoming President, including Governor Schwarzenegger and former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.

The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the
United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status:

1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?
2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?
3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?

If the answer to the first question is “yes” then Obama meets the citizenship requirements to be President. On the other hand, if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second or third question is “yes”, Obama is not eligible to be President.

Plaintiff has learned through extensive investigation that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Plaintiff learned that Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a United States citizen who was not old enough and did not reside in the United States long enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen.

Under the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in 1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire “natural born” United States citizenship if the United States citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for ten (10) years prior to the child’s birth, five (5) of those years being after age fourteen (14).

Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America
v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet the age and residency requirements for her child to have acquired “natural born” United States citizenship. Therefore, Obama may not be considered a “natural born” United States citizen.

There is no indication that Obama is a naturalized citizen either.

In response to requests from Plaintiff and the general public for Obama to
produce proof of his citizenship, Obama allowed the Daily Kos to post on their website an image of a Certification of Live Birth with Obama’s name on it purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate at www.dailykos.com.

This same image was also placed on Obama’s website, http://fightthesmears.com and on another website located at http://factcheck.org.

The image placed on these websites is of a Hawaiian document which is provided for children’s births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births abroad, which have been registered in Hawaii, whether the citizenship status was “natural born” or “naturalized”.

Thus, the posting of Obama’s purported birth certificate did not prove Obama was a “natural born” citizen.

Further, the images placed on these three (3) websites were later discovered by Document Image Specialists to be altered and forged images.

It appears that Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

Plaintiff discovered through investigation that Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who either signed a government form legally “acknowledging” Obama as his son or “adopted” Obama, either of which changed any citizenship status Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia.

Obama was registered in a Jakarta public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A.

There was no other way for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools and any time a child was registered for a public school, their name and citizenship status was verified through the Indonesian Government.

These facts indicate that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, and therefore, he is not eligible to be President of the U.S.

Plaintiff filed suit on August 21, 2008 seeking proof of Obama’s citizenship
status. Defendants, Obama and the DNC’s Answers were due on or before September 24, 2008.

Plaintiff filed a Motion on September 09, 2008 for Expedited Discovery,
Extensive Discovery, Deposition of Obama and Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman and a request for the appointment of a Special Master to be present during the depositions.

Defendants failed to respond or oppose Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, which is still
pending before this Court.

On September 15, 2008, Plaintiff served discovery by way of Request for
Admissions and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants Obama and the DNC.

Instead of filing an Answer, Defendants, Obama and the DNC filed a Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff did not have
standing and failure to state a claim which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff Opposed the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and requested to file an Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint and attached his
First Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A” on the early morning of October 6, 2008,
document number fourteen (14) on the docket.

On the afternoon of October 6, 2008, Plaintiff received a call from John P.
Lavelle, Jr., counsel for the DNC and Obama in order to meet and confer regarding
discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f). Mr. Lavelle
requested a stay of discovery pending this Honorable Court’s decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss currently pending.

Plaintiff declined this request as Obama’s citizenship status is of National security as he is running for President of the United States.

Mr. Lavelle stated he was filing a Motion for a Protective Order staying
discovery pending a decision on the Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Shortly thereafter, Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order was filed with this Court as document number fifteen (15).

This Court has not ruled on Defendants’ motion. The Presidential election is only two (2) weeks away. Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as President of the United States. As aresult, Plaintiff as well as many other United States citizens have been harmed and will continue to be harmed until Obama proves his citizenship status or withdraws as the Democratic Presidential candidate.

Plaintiff as well as many United States citizens will have been deprived of their constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate and will lose the money they have invested in Obama in the elusive hope of “change”.

The citizenship status of Defendant Obama is a critical issue and of concern to
Plaintiff as well as the general public, which needs to be addressed prior to the
Presidential election on November 4, 2008.

Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding
Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status.

The fact Obama is a U.S. Senator for Illinois and a Presidential candidate, he is open for public scrutiny and Plaintiff as well as all American Citizens have a right to question and receive proof of Obama’s citizenship status.

Moreover, Defendants have failed to answer Plaintiff’s requests for Admissions
in a timely manner, and those matters are automatically deemed admitted in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a); McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000).

Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

B. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO UNDISPUTED FACTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF:

Request for Admissions were served upon Defendants, Obama and the DNC on
September 15, 2008.

Answers and/or Objections were due within thirty [30] days.

Although Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order on October 9, 2008, the
Court has never ruled upon their Motion and therefore, a Protective Order was not
granted and discovery has never been stayed.

Failure to Answer or Oppose Requests for Admissions deems them Admitted.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36, McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000), Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732 (1977); Siss v. County of Passaic, 75 F. Supp. 2d 325, 331 (D.N.J. 1999).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 states in pertinent part:

“(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding.

A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to
whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written
answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its
attorney.

Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Defendants were simple and straightforward recitations of fact which could be admitted or denied and to which Defendants should have personal knowledge and familiarity. Despite the simplicity, Defendants failed to Answer and/or Object to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.

Since Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions are based solely on Plaintiff’s Complaint which addresses Obama’s non-natural born United States citizen status (Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Obama are attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions served upon the DNC are attached hereto as Exhibit “2”), the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen was automatically deemed admitted upon Defendants’ failure to answer Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission in a timely manner.

The admitted matter is conclusively established for purposes of the pending action. See American Auto Ass’n v.AAA Legal Clinic, 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991)
(conclusive effect of admission applies equally to matters affirmatively admitted and
those established by default).

Therefore, there are no issues of material fact that remain and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Admissions of fact made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 are
“unassailable statement of facts that narrows the triable issues in the case.” Airco
Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.29 1028,
1037 (3rd Cir. 1988).

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
against Defendants, Obama and DNC, should be immediately granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE and
MUST BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF:

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c), Summary Judgment should
be granted to Plaintiff because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986), Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 786 F.2d 564, 568 (3rd Cir. 1986).

The Third Circuit Courts have considered the question of the proper interplay
between the granting of a Summary Judgment and requests for admissions and have held that failure to respond to properly served admissions permits the entry of summary judgment when the facts deemed admitted are dispositive. See Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176 (3d Cir. 1990) (deemed admissions sufficient to support summary judgment); Freed v. Plastic Packaging Materials, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 550, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1975).

In this case, Defendants’ deemed admissions warrant the entry of a Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff because the deemed admissions address every element of Plaintiff’s claim and no genuine issues of material fact remain.

For the above aforementioned reason’s Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be immediately granted to all of
Plaintiff’s claims.

D. CONCLUSION:

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,
respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Grant his Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee, as to all of Plaintiff’s Claims.

Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to declare Barack Hussein

Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” United States citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.

Plaintiff further requests this Honorable Court to Order The Democratic National
Committee to remove the name of Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro from the Presidential ballot and to enjoin Defendants from any further Presidential campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

In addition, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to Order the Democratic
National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al to pay all fees and costs associated with this suit in the amount of $48,300.00. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s Philip J. Berg
Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in
Support thereof, were served via electronic filing on the ECF System, this 22nd day of October 2008 upon the following:

John P. Lavelle, Jr.

Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL, LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)
lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Joseph E. Sandler

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC
300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
sandler@sandlerreiff.com

Robert F. Bauer

General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: 202.628.6600
Facsimile: 202.434.1690

Attorney’s for Defendant’s RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/10/23/the-coming-constitutional-crisis/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Chris,

    There is no legal or factual merit to this lawsuit. The questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship have been answered for all those who care to look it up.

    He was born in the State of Hawaii on August 4, 1961. There’s a birth certificate that documents this and a birth announcement in the paper of record in Honolulu at the time that corroborates the birth. Additionally, parents don’t have the legal right to renounce their children’s citizenship so whatever his step-father may have done in Indonesia is irrelevant.

    Obama didn’t respond to it the allegations suit because he didn’t have to respond to a lawsuit that has no legal merit. Furthermore, Berg’s is being misleading when he says that Obama has not responded to the lawsuit’s allegations — under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Motion to Dismiss that was filed must be ruled upon before a substantive response is required. That hasn’t happened yet, and probably never will.

    The suit will be dismissed on one of three grounds. Either the judge will decide that Berg lacks standing to bring the suit, that his Court has no jurisdiction to even hear it, or that the lawsuit fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For good measure, he’ll probably dismiss it on all three.

    Putting on my lawyer hat for a moment, I can only hope that the so called attorney behind the piece of crap are sanctioned for even filing this meritless nonsense.

  • http://www.kipesquire.net KipEsquire

    Plaintiff lacks standing. Case dismissed.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Kip,

    I tend to agree with you, although, from a politicians point of view, I’m betting that Obama’s people would prefer to see it rejected on the merits.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    For a rather thorough debunking of the allegations made by Berg and others regarding Obama’s citizenship, I’d refer everyone to this series of blog posts by AJ Strata, a conservative:

    http://tinyurl.com/4c7k8m

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/tarran/ tarran

    I suspect, that the courts will do to this case what they did to the Barr lawsuit over ballot access in Louisiana.

    Dismiss the suit, deny all appeals and allow it to die. And yes, it seems to me to be quite frivolous. I am however rooting for it to succeed. Also, it would be nice for someone to file a lawsuit over John McCain’s eligibility as someone born in the Paname Canal zone. Also fivolous, I know.

    But, can you imagine how wonderful it would be if both McCain and Obama were disqualified for standing for president? At the minimum, it would be entertaining. ;) And who knows, Barr might win then! :)

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Doug:
    I’m sure they’d prefer it get dismissed on the merits, but I don’t think the Obama campaign cares that much about this. The number of people who actually care about this lunatic’s lawsuit probably number in the thousands rather than millions.

    Either way, this idiot’s summary judgment motion demonstrates pretty clearly how legal licensing does exactly zero to increase the quality of lawyers. I will be exceedingly disappointed if the Court doesn’t impose sanctions on the guy for filing such a patently frivolous motion, which has about as much merit as the infamous pro se’s Motion to Kiss My Ass.

    And while we’re here, it’s worth noting that his service of discovery was completely untimely under Rule 26. You’re not allowed to even seek discovery until there’s been a discovery conference, and it’s pretty clear that Obama’s lawyers wouldn’t have engaged in such a conference while they still had a motion to dismiss pending. That the idiot filed a frivolous Motion for Expedited Discovery doesn’t get him around this requirement, especially since the Court never ruled on that motion.

    I hope the guy has deep pockets, because methinks he’s about to pay some pretty hefty legal fees to Ballard Spahr and Sandler Reiff.

  • thomasblair

    Doug/Kip,

    If there were evidence that he were born in, say, Kenya, who might then have standing, and when might they have it?

    Would someone (again, who?) have to wait until after the election to file suit citing a present harm? How would the harm be quantifiable to establish standing?

    Again, this is all hypothetical. I’m just curious.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Mark,

    I’m sure they’d prefer it get dismissed on the merits, but I don’t think the Obama campaign cares that much about this. The number of people who actually care about this lunatic’s lawsuit probably number in the thousands rather than millions.

    You’re right about that, I’m sure.

    I hope the guy has deep pockets, because methinks he’s about to pay some pretty hefty legal fees to Ballard Spahr and Sandler Reiff.

    And I hope you’re right about that.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris Byrne

    Doug and Kip,

    If they DON’T get it dismissed on the merits, the exact same allegations and information are going to be used to file cases from now, until he is out of office presuming he is elected.

    As of right now, they are only arguing standing and jurisdiction.

    Do you think that this isn’t going to be a problem?

    I’ve spent the last three years arguing a federal case, responding to motions and appeals with no merit.

    Because he had even the slightest validity in his cause of action, it was strongly advised BY THE JUDGE, that we respond to all motions in a timely manner; even though we had a motion to dismiss pending the entire time.

    Until this case is heard on the merits, and dismissed on the merits, I think it’s going to be a MAJOR issue for Obama.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris Byrne

    Oh and the debunkings don’t matter, none of them have been presented in court.

    I’m trying to say, that until the Obama campaign actually does so, this is going to keep going. The anti-obama nuts out there; most of whom are democrats or at least on the left; will not let this die.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Chris,

    This is only going to be a “problem” to the same extent that the crazy right wingers who believed that Bill Clinton was running a drug running operation out of Mena, Arkansas, or that he was secretly letting UN troops flying black helicopters invade the United States, or that he orchestrated the attack in the Oklahoma City were a problem in the 1990s. It will be a “problem” to the same extent that the 9/11 Truthers, the people who believe that Florida was “stolen” stolen in 2000, or the people who believe that Ohio was “stolen” in 2004 were a problem in the 2000s.

    There is nothing that is going to satisfy the crazy poeople who occupy the political fringe, so pandering to their idiocy isn’t really a sound political strategy.

    From a legal point of view, I’m sure that Mark and Kip will agree with me that Berg is completely wrong in the legal arguments he’s made in the Motion for Summary Judgment — in fact, given the fact that the Motion to Dismiss hasn’t been ruled on yet, it is arguably sanctionable to even file a Motion for Summary Judgment.

    Is it possible for crazy people like Berg to file lawsuits ?

    Unfortunately, it is.

    Should we pay attention to them ?

    No, we shouldn’t.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    the debunkings don’t matter, none of them have been presented in court

    Why ?

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

    Doug,

    All Obama has to do is get a federal judge to make a finding of fact that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.

    Until he does that, I believe this will continue to be a problem.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    thomasblair:
    Presumably, the McCain campaign would have standing to sue, as would any other candidate appearing on the ballot, I would think.

    Chris:
    This isn’t an issue of responding to frivolous motions, though. The guy is claiming he is entitled to SJ because the Obama campaign hasn’t responded to his untimely and impermissible discovery requests. One of the entire points of allowing motions to dismiss is to reduce the costs of litigation, and most especially discovery. Moreover, under the rules, the Obama campaign is explicitly not required to file an answer until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
    I actually have a MTD pending in the E.D. Pa. right now. If the judge gives this guy any leeway whatsoever, then it means that just about anyone who files a MTD in the E.D. Pa. is committing malpractice if they don’t simultaneously file an answer (myself included).
    Either way, the fact is that even if the suit were dismissed on the merits, this issue will not go away for the incredibly small portion of the public that actually believes Berg; they’ll just keep on coming up with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. Which is why, as much as they would prefer to get it dismissed on the merits, the Obama campaign really doesn’t care all that terribly much – getting it dismissed quickly (and thus accruing less legal fees and less potential distraction) is much more important to them.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Doug-
    Not only is he completely wrong, but a lot of his arguments are directly at odds with the Rules of Civil Procedure in ways that even a first-year law student could point out in about five minutes. If the guy were just a typical pro se, it probably wouldn’t be sanctionable, but because he’s an attorney who is actually supposed to have at least a minimal understanding of the Rules of Civil Procedure, his motion is beyond frivolous and sanctionable. At a minimum, I can’t see how he will avoid having to pay Obama’s legal fees in connection with responding to the motion. In fact, I’ve heard of attorneys being sanctioned for far less frivolous arguments than those put forward here.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

    Mark,

    I have no doubt the SJ motion will be denied; however, I am far less sanguine about a summary dismissal being granted on the part of DNC Obama et al.

    I’m inclined to think if the judge were going to do so, he already would have done so; or at least scheduled the hearing.

    I presume Berg knows his motion for SJ will fail, and filed it to prod the judge, and generate additional attention to the case.

    What I’m hoping, is that the judge denies the motions to dismiss on jurisdiction and standing, denies the jury trial motion, insists on an expidited hearing, and issues a finding of fact that Obama is a citizen (or on a long shot, that he isn’t. Somehow I don’t think that is going to happen).

    If that doesn’t happen, this same case will be filed over and over again until it does.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Chris,

    Why does nonsense like this, filed by a man who obviously doesn’t understand either the law or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, need to be in Court at all ?

    It doesn’t.

    If there was any real issue here, then the Clinton campaign and the media would’ve uncovered it last year.

    Again, why should we be spending so much time talking about an obviously meritless claim filed by a crazy man ?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Chris,

    I have no doubt the SJ motion will be denied; however, I am far less sanguine about a summary dismissal being granted on the part of DNC Obama et al.

    I’m inclined to think if the judge were going to do so, he already would have done so; or at least scheduled the hearing.

    Under the FRCP and, most likely, the local rules in effect in this particular court, it’s far too early for the Judge to be ruling on substantive issues. No evidence, outside of the unsubstantiated allegations made in Berg’s motion, has been presented to the Court. And, there’s no reason it should be. This is a waste of judicial time and resources.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris Byrne

    Doug, I understand that this pisses you off, and clearly in general frivolous lawsuits, and wasting the courts time pisses you off.

    I agree.

    There’s too much time wasting with legitimate acases to put up with frivolous ones.

    However, just because it pisses you off and it’s wrong, doesn’t mean that these guys can’t raise holy hell with the confidence of the american people in their government, and potentially their president.

    A simple finding of fact that Obama is a citizen will stop all of this.

    What I don’t understand, is why they aren’t pushing for that…

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Chris,

    This supposed attorney is using the Court system to make political points by putting forward “facts” that have already been discredited, mis-stating the law, and abusing the Federal Rules to, again, make political points.

    So, yea, I’m pissed.

    More importantly, though, I’m annoyed that people are giving this loser any attention at all.

    As I said this morning, the facts are there for anyone who cares to review them. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4 1961. His mother was an American citizen. So is he.

    Not only is a waste of the Court’s time to deal with this case, it’s a waste of time to talk about this at all and if Obama’s opponents think that this is an issue that will get them anywhere, they’re kidding themselves.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org Brad Warbiany

    However, just because it pisses you off and it’s wrong, doesn’t mean that these guys can’t raise holy hell with the confidence of the american people in their government, and potentially their president.

    A reduction in the confidence in government might be a good thing. I’d rather have a populace who distrusts their government than one who would give it more power.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    I’m not at all certain that the judge would be inclined to issue a quick ruling on this case by now. Heck, I have a motion currently pending before a magistrate judge for which I had oral arguments a month and a half ago, during which the judge pretty strongly indicated how he intended to rule….and still no formal order.

    This idiot doesn’t indicate on what date Obama’s lawyers filed their MTD, but it was due on September 24. Assuming they filed their MTD on September 23 or 24, that would mean, at the earliest, briefing would have concluded on the MTD within the last several days. (It’s tough to say exactly because the E.D. Pa. doesn’t really have formal local rules; instead it mostly relies on individual judges’ guidelines, and Judge Surrick doesn’t specify a time frame for filing reply briefs. Usually it’s seven days, though.). Assuming that to be the case, and assuming Judge Surrick is treating this case as the low priority he should, I can’t imagine that there has been oral argument on the MTD yet. Regardless, the timing is such that it would be extraodinarily unusual for the Court to have issued a decision on the MTD already.

    As an aside – I just noticed that he indicates he had a 26(f) conference on October 6. While I’m skeptical of his claim that this conversation was a valid 26(f) conference, his statement that it was is an acknowledgement that his discovery requests prior to that date were patently untimely and thus impermissible. Even if the judge allowed the discovery requests to stand, this would mean that at the earliest, the time for responding to discovery would have begun to run on October 6, giving Obama until the day after the election to respond to the requests for admission (even if it’s allowable to begin that period when an MTD is still pending, which I somewhat doubt).

    Either way the conclusion is the same – not only is the SJ motion meritless, it’s blatantly frivolous and sanctionable. Again, I’ve seen far less frivolous (though still meritless) motions lead to sanctions.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Brad,

    A reduction in the confidence in government might be a good thing. I’d rather have a populace who distrusts their government than one who would give it more power.

    Granted, but I don’t think it helps the cause of liberty to become allied in any respect with members of the tinfoil hat crowd or idiots like Berg.

    And, quite honestly, my guess is that the average American is going to give people like Berg the time the deserve, none.

  • Horatio

    For what it’s worth, Berg is a Democrat, and a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania. Of course, that doesn’t mean the man’s not be a lunatic.

  • http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/obama-citizenship-case-dismissed/ ahrcanum

    According to the Online edition of the Philadelphia News, Surrick has dismissed the case.
    http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html

    There is a blank template for anyone else wishing to file suit at http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/10/draft-cal-template-to-sue-for-bocolb.html

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    That would appear to settle it. According to the article it sounds like the judge supplemented his findings on standing with a complete rejection of the merits of the suit. Of course, it won’t satisfy the conspiracy whackos, but only because nothing would satisfy them.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

    Actually near as I can tell he DIDNT rule on the merits. He commented on the merits but only ruled on the standing issue (and apparently decided he had subject matter jurisdiction).

    As of a couple hours ago the minute entry wasn’t up in PACER so I haven’t seen the ruling yet, just a couple press blurbs on the case.

    If he only ruled on standing, this leaves the whole thing open for re-filing, and for appeal; which will obviously happen immediately.

    Further, because no finding of fact was issued that Obama is a natural born citizen, this also leaves open the other lawsuits which have already been filed.

    As of Friday, similar suits had been filed in all 50 states, and every federal district.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    because no finding of fact was issued that Obama is a natural born citizen, this also leaves open the other lawsuits which have already been filed.

    No, it doesn’t. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. This is a fact that has already been proven and doesn’t need to waste the docket of 50, or even a single, Federal District Court judge.

    As of Friday, similar suits had been filed in all 50 states, and every federal district.

    Excellent. Hopefully, we’ll see some aggressive use of Rule 11 over the coming weeks.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

    Doug, you and I both know that the truth doesn’t matter a damn in court until the judge says it’s true.

    The worst lie in the world, the stupidest bullshit; until a judge says true or false anything can happen.

    That’s the perversity of the legal system.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Chris,

    The perversity lies in the idea that the Court system needs to be brought into nonsense like this.

    And, yes, I say that as an attorney.

    Do you really think that the insane conspiracy-minded people who persist in the false beliefs that (1) Obama is not a natural born citizen, (2) that is a Muslim (as if that’s a crime), (3) that his family has engaged in a 47 year long conspiracy to fake his birth in Hawaii so that he could one day run for the Presidency are going to be satisfied by the ruling of one, or even 50, Federal Judges ?

    We both know they aren’t. They’ll persist in publishing their crap throughout the 4 or 8 years of an Obama Presidency, and then they’ll move on to the next target.

    There’s no factual merit in this nonsense. It doesn’t belong in a court of law, and it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

  • http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

    Do I think the conspiracy nuts will be satisfied? No.

    Do I think that no lawyer in their right minds will touch another Obama citizenship case once a finding of fact has been entered, yes.

    Lord, you can’t stop lunatics from filing pro se to have bush declared a lizard person from space (in crayon no less); but at least they can be summarily dismissed without hearing; and the press pays no attention to them except as humor.

    As it is, these idiots can claim some legitimacy, because a judge hasn’t ruled against them.

  • http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/obama-citizenship-case-dismissed/ ahrcanum

    “As of Friday, similar suits had been filed in all 50 states, and every federal district.” in Mr. Doug Mataconis post. Seems there are more idiots with some legalese than you’d think.

    Would you happen to have a source on all those cases?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    you can’t stop lunatics from filing pro se to have bush declared a lizard person from space (in crayon no less); but at least they can be summarily dismissed without hearing; and the press pays no attention to them except as humor.

    And all of those suits are dismissed on the same grounds that Berg’s is.

    Just because a moron like Berg and but crayon to paper and write a Complaint, doesn’t mean he deserves a day in Court.

  • http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/ ahrcanum

    If Berg has no standing, who does?

  • Kelly

    The citizens of the U.S. just elected a man who’s name is…”Barack Hussein Obama” into the highest office in his country, who refuses to produce his birth certificate?

    Let me get this right; Obama’s mother gets pregnant by Barack Obama Sr. in Hawaii & they both travel to Kenya where she gives birth to Barack Jr. His realtives from Kenya admits that he was born there & that they were actually there to see his birth. Then Obamas mother separates from Obama Sr. & then remarries a man who’s last name is “Soltero” from Indonesia, and he adopts Barack. His name is changed to “Barry Soltero.” On this legal school form in Indonesia, it reads “Barry Soltero” and his practicing religion is “Islam.” Then his mother leaves Indonesia & goes back to Hawaii, to dump “Barry Soltero” onto her white parents who live in Hawaii, and they end up helping to raise him.

    It certainly sounds like to me, that “Barack Hussein Obama” was not born in the U.S. and is NOT qualified to be our president of the United States! There is something terribly wrong here! Sounds like Obama has be living a LIE all his life and his white grandmother (who just died) knew it! She went to her dying grave with this secret too. The supreme court MUST get involved ASAP, to find out the truth to all this. I AM A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY & I WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH!

  • ken Overstreet

    Kelly,
    Your opinion here is very sickening and offensive. The elections are over but you insist that you must continue to parade your unpopular 19th century divisive and racist comments. Grow up! Even Mccain has. It is a new dawn and we can move forward without bitter nay sayers like you!
    May God touch your heart and give you the grace of salvation to truly understand that all men are equal in God; there are Jews or Gentiles, we are children of the most high God.

  • http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/obamas-birth-certificate-heads-to-supreme-court/ Ahrcanum

    Indeed, all men are created equal but not all men meet the citizenship qualifications to be President and there seems to be a some questions still lingering regarding Obama’s citizenship.

    Not to tick you off as I am really trying to understand all this, but I read that Supreme Court 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. Berg’s petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was of course denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari. Is the court asking for Obama’s birth certificate or just a reply? Or is this just usual proceedings of the Court? Respectfully.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML