Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Barack Obama Lawsuit(s) - Update 10/21/08

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Photo Courtesy: The Drudge Report

There is some news about the Philip Berg lawsuit against Barack Obama. Earlier today, Susan Duclos posted and shared her work with Radarsite and Maggie's Notebook. Susan asked a couple of question: 1) Why isn't Obama et al providing documents to prove his natural born citizenship status? and 2) "What the hell is going on?

Susan's Wake up America update follows these observations from Maggie:

An excellent source for information, from the beginning, has been Jeff Schreiber at America's Right. Philip Berg's original lawsuit, filed in U.S. Federal Court in Philadelphia, was brought against Barack Obama, The Democrat National Committee (DNC) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Yesterday, Schreiber reported that Obama and the DNC filed for dismissal. Today, he reports that the FEC has done the same.

One of the problems with the Berg lawsuit seems to be that Berg may not "have standing" with the court. Here's what Schrieber has posted about the "minimum requiremets of standing:
[From FEC v. Atkins] Three elements constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing: (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct of the defendant (traceability), and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court ... The injury-in-fact required by Article III is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “concrete and particularized” as well as “actual or imminent,” rather than “conjectural” or "hypothetical." The injury cannot be merely a generalized grievance about the government that affects all citizens or derives from an interest in the proper enforcement of the law.
Isn't that interesting? If Berg's case is dismissed, then at least one reason may be that "we the people" really do not have a "grievance" if we have a President who is not a natural born citizen, as required by The U.S. Constitution. Just to be clear, since I have quoted Schreiber at times, he certainly didn't say those words, I did.

Now, here is a portion of something Jeff Schreiber did say:
That final sentence, from FEC v. Akins, truly shows the similarity between the issue of voter standing and the issue of taxpayer standing. Just as you or I could not sue the United States of America claiming to have standing simply because we are taxpayers, the FEC contends--just as was contended by Obama and the DNC, as well as the defendants in the three similar cases against John McCain--that voters cannot raise the issue of constitutional eligibility just because they are voters.
The question then is, who the heck can raise the issue and why haven't they. I'm told that this is accomplished through the U.S. House of Representatives. If this is correct, when might we expect Speaker Pelosi to raise the issue? BWHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA. Another question, how would we force her to do so?

Another interesting non-happening, reported yesterday by Jeff Schreiber: Philip Berg claims that Barack Obama and the DNC failed to answer "requests for admissions." According to Berg, a party so served:
"...must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.
It seems both parties, Barack Obama and the DNC, failed to answer. So what next?


Obama Files Motion to Dismiss Instead of Producing the Documents
Cross-posted by Susan at Wake up America

I [Susan] have tried hard to stay away from this issue and simply wait to see how things played out, but since Barack Obama has now filed a motion to dismiss Philip Berg's lawsuit against him, where Berg was requesting three items from the Obama campaign, to which the campaign has refused to supply, I figure I will at least write about what is happening, with no opinion given either way.

The three items Berg has requested the court force Obama to supply are:

Certified "vault" birth certificate;

A copy of his Certificate of Citizenship;

A copy of his Oath of Allegiance to the United States

Obama's motion to dismiss story, via Tallahassee Injury Board:

Attorneys for Barack Hussein Obama filed a motion in Federal Court in Pennsylvania on Monday, asking the court to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Philip J. Berg. The lawsuit filed by Berg challenges Obama's eligibility to take the office of the President of the United States. The motion to dismiss filed by Obama and the Democratic National Committee, echoes Obama's prior motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In his lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, a Philadelphia attorney, alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old, to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The lawsuit raises not only the Indonesian citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Kenya.

Mr. Berg has stated that if Barack Hussein Obama will produce a certified "vault" birth certificate, a copy of his Certificate of Citizenship and a copy of his Oath of Allegiance to the United States, that he (Mr. Berg) will dismiss his lawsuit voluntarily. To date, Obama has refused to comply with Mr. Berg's request.

The parties (and the country) await a decision by Judge R. Barclay Surrick on the motions to dismiss and a motion to block discovery, filed by Obama.

As I said above, I have no opinion one way or another on this whole strange mess, but I do have a simple question I have been asking for a while now.

Why does Obama not just supply the paperwork and be done with this whole issue altogether?

Why has Obama and the DNC fought so hard to block having to produce the paperwork, instead of just getting it over with?

While all this is going on, it has just been reported that Barack Obama is leaving the campaign trail to go to Hawaii and visit his grandmother who the campaign claims is sick.

Coincidence? Probably.

Since I am showing the current reports on this topic, a news release by Philip Berg, the attorney that filed the lawsuit to force Obama to produce the proof, can be found here. (PDF file)
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - 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 the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
(Disclaimer- I am not a lawyer, I have no way of knowing why this back and forth is necessary or why Obama and the DNC haven't produced the paperwork Berg is suing to see)

If you have questions about Berg's lawsuit or why Barack Obama is filing a motion to dismiss rather than simply producing the documents, which should be a simple matter, here is Berg's information.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

(Note- I am finding this whole thing very strange, so any lawyers out there reading this, please feel free to weigh in. It also bears noting, Berg is a Democrat, which makes this even more strange)

reports there has been another lawsuit filed against Barack Obama from a man named Andy Martin in Hawaii demanding that the State turn over Obama's Birth Certificate.

YID questions whether this trip to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother is a bit too coincidental as well.

I am reserving judgment, but I still maintain there is something strange about Obama not just producing the damn documents and instead fighting hard so that he doesn't have to produce them.

What the hell is going on?

End Wake up America article

Also visit the excellent work by Jeff Schreiber at America's Right for the latest and all the background. You'll find a list of about 17 things that Berg asserts Obama and the DNC have now ADMITTED.

How many Obama Lawsuits


  1. "This afternoon, the FEC met that deadline when it filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, answering Berg's complaint by arguing that he "lacks standing to raise the issue of a candidate's constitutional eligibility."

    "Moreover," the motion reads, "even if Berg had standing to raise the constitutional eligibility issue, the Commission should be dismissed as a party to this case because it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause."" from Jeff's blog

    Wow, unbelievable arrogance. Perhaps President Bush will bring it up considering he has to hand the Presidency over to a U.S. citizen who qualifies, according to the Constitution, to take office.

    But really who are we kidding? Obama and the DNC are in cahoots together on this, and it is obvious what they have to hide is that Obama is NOT a legitimate candidate, and they have no proof to say otherwise.

  2. It would be so easy for Obama to just produce the Birth Certificate. It's not a hard thing to do. Unless he wasn't born in Hawaii and was born in Kenya. Then he would have a British birth certifiicate. That is the only reason I can think of.

  3. I have a blog in which I'm asking voters to consider a question a day for the final 20 days of the election.

    I've made this issue the question of the day for election minus 15:

    With so many lawsuits - including one from lawyer and prominent Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg - seeking proof of Obama's citizenship, do you think Barrack Obama should finally allow access to birth and supporting hospital records that prove his citizenship?

    Please check it out and vote in the corresponding poll at:


    And since the MSM is largely ignoring this issue and every legitimate question about Obama, please keep posting! Remember the Blogosphere made the MSM report on "Memogate" and let to the departure of Dan Rather.

    The issue of Obama's citizenship and the election as a whole are far from a clear determination.

    It's not over, yet, my friends.