Saturday, October 25, 2008

Berg v Obama Citizenship Dismissed in Philadelphia Court

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

This photo is not a subliminal message - it's a threat

Philip Berg's lawsuit against Barack Obama and the DNC has been dismissed in a Philadelphia Federal Court.

Jeff Schreiber at America's Right is reporting that Judge Surrick finds that Berg lacks "standing," and further from Schreiber:
A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.
What this means is that our Federal courts do not consider a possible fraudlent filing for the office of U.S. President, possible fraudlent campaign for President and possible fraudlent taking of the oath of office, and stepping into the Oval Office as an "injury" to the people of this country. That's the bottom line. Until an unqualified person actually takes the office, "we the people" have not been injured.

So who does have standing, Schrieber asks: "According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide."
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Assuming this is true, are we so naive as to think that Congress does not know this?

Maybe the DNC has properly vetted their candidate, but it appears they may not have done so, simply because they have not put this matter to rest.

I have had numerous commenters claiming that the DNC knows his citizenship status - because, as one commenter said "they check these things, you know." Well, if that is so, why would the Senate not have stepped up with a non-binding resolution declaring his natural born status, as they did on John MaCain's behalf? How incredible is this?

Read Schreiber's entire report which is packed with additional info.


  1. The judge said Berg's lawsuit was "ridiculous" and "patently false". Case closed.

  2. I'm sorry, but I'm using profanity in my head big time. I guess there are perks to learning and teaching constitutional law - you have time to figure your way around how to become President of the United States when you are not eligible to do so.


    I wonder if that Judge was a democrat.

    Well, individual states should refuse to count votes until Obama provides proof that he is eligible to run for President of the United States. People need to use their leverage somehow.

  3. Did you doubt this outcome?

    Look at recent rulings.

    Are we not already in dangerous territory, in our Beloved Country?

    The question is... what's next?

    And what now?


  4. Anonymous: that is not what the judge said.

  5. Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate "win" on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here's how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA'S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER'S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!

  6. Joanne, I think it was Constitutional, and the judge could not get around it. I think it is an issue of needing a new law. Who ever saw this scenario coming up?

    To have "standing" you must have an injury, and according to law, that injury is just a threat, at this point.

    It is somewhat different in state courts. There remain 7 lawsuits, I think. I do not know their viability.

    I expect that Berg will take this to SCOTUS - at least he has said he will. I think he will have problems there also, but he is licensed to argue before the Court (according to him).

    I'm checking into just what the Electoral College can and cannot do.

  7. Frankly, I believe vetting this out had to have been done even by the DNC - certainly by Hillary.
    When there are available declarations and patterns of truth-abuse (Hmmn - TAS - Truth-Abuse-Syndrome - and I don't even read "Psychology Today") and they're not being applied in argument, then focus is distorted.
    Unfortunately (even us conservatives have them) the terminally unique would have us running down rat-holes hoping to find an ink smudge. It's a sef-deceiving distraction and we would do better to take him on in the open field. We might try an old ploy: Simple English.
    We can make the fact that 'Baraq' is so secretive that it is no secret; thus he's untrustworthy.
    Make the fact of his doubletalk so obvious that his echoes contradict themselves. Amplify; usse Stereo.
    Leave these hateful little people like Wright, Ayres, Odinga, Rezko, Farrakhan and Ibrahim 'Douggie' Hooper of CAIR there where they suit a 'framework for this liars portrait'.
    Open field is not his forte as we know. Among the seditious it rarely is.
    Our "secret weapon" is to take him on in the open.
    "Senator, Yes or No....?"
    "Senator, Yes or No!! You can indulge us to yawning with your rhetoric, contradictions and
    Let me explain's" after you employ one of two simple words; Yes or No..They're English language words, Senator..."
    Show me a few newspeople or journalists with "sets" to give the American voter a chance to prove they're not lemmings and might have a chance to save this country.
    I choose to blieve, that between 'Americana'(my blog definition), the lemmings, and concerned citizens there's a wealth of values that have been asleep. (Sleep of the innocents, I would want, but, never-the-less asleep.)
    Let's not some ancestor of ours read "While America Slept".

  8. maggie - that's just it, Obama found away around having to put up or shut up. There is a loop hole for everything, even in the Constitution.

    From my understanding, Berg was going to the Supreme Court if it failed in the Philadelphia Court.

    I'm thinking McCain is going to need to bring this up and ask why Obama will not produce such documents.

    McCain doesn't seem to have much bite; he needs to show some teeth.

  9. Joanne, I agree. Problem is, McCain will not do it.

    Some entity must do it.

  10. Shawmut: if the DNC has vetted Obama's natural born status, what keeps them from saying so, rather than risking some will not vote for him for this reason, among others.

    If any one thing can keep a vote away, it would be not being natural born, no matter which party.

    Why did Hillary begin and back a non-binding Resolution to affirm McCain's natural status, but not a peep about Obama?

    I understand that Hillary does not want to help Obama, but what the others?

  11. Maggie, you make a good point for chatter.
    My point to consideris that while we cite the sinister furtiveness, such efforts are easily dispatched by people less perceptive than we are.
    While furtive and seducing types thrive in the shadows, exploiting them in the open is for them "Sneaky".
    Don't think for a minute, that I trust this guy and his crowd, but we're trying to appeal to a public that just won't buy.
    We're living in a country with TAS - Truth Aversion Syndrome - "DENIAL".
    That is where the election stands.
    And, I will assert, once again; While this was developing, we were here.
    That is not as self- flagellating or chastizing as it sounds. While we were out earning our daily bread, cultural elites on either public payrolls or tenured behind the ivy walls were very busy (Ask that element about real life - They'll studder like Baraq.
    How often do we hear "every kid should go to college"? Sure, let's tranquilize the work ethic for four-plus years.
    I recently converted my barber who was a Naom Chansky disciple when I remind him that he worked harder in a week than the professor has in a lifetime.
    On the vetting issue; you may have noticed that in six weeks we know more about Sarah Palin and "Joe the Plumber" than we do about the Senator from Illinois.
    Thank the Media that provide a 2X force multiplier to all the money that Baraq has.
    One might suggest a violation of rights as interpreted in the First Amendment.