Tag Archives: Obama motion to dismiss

Obama Indonesian citizen, Obama lies, Obama motion to dismiss, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Amended complaint, John Lavelle motion, Judge Surrick ruling

Barack Obama is still hiding his Indonesian citizenship behind legal
maneuvering and legalese. Today, Monday October 20, 2008, Obama filed another motion. The motion today was to dismiss Philip J Berg’s
amended complaint. Jeff Schreiber reports the following:

“Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama, DNC File Motion to Dismiss Berg’s First Amended Complaint
 
Just a few minutes ago, attorneys for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, a motion for leave for which was filed by Philip Berg on Monday, October 6.

Generally, an amended complaint cannot simply be filed by an attorney — the attorney must file a motion with the court, called a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, essentially asking that the court permit the amended complaint to be filed. That motion, the October 6 motion, is one of more than ten pending pleadings and still has not been addressed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick.

I am just now taking a look at it, but from a quick glance it appears as though Obama and the DNC are moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the same grounds for which they moved to dismiss the original complaint — that Berg lacks standing and fails to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 

On September 24, 2008, Defendants Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Senator Barack Obama filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint filed in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, together with a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”). Assuming that no leave to amend is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading,1 the First Amended Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed, on the same grounds. No amendment to the Complaint can possibly cure its fundamental defects. Not only are the allegations patently false, but plaintiff lacks standing and there is no federal cause of action for enforcement of Article II of the Constitution. Nor has plaintiff set forth, i n the Amended Complaint, any other viable federal cause of action.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Support Philip J Berg in upholding the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg lawsuit video, Jeff Schreiber Berg interview, YouTube video, Molotov Mitchell interview, Obama Indonesian, Obama motion to dismiss, US Constitution, Judge Surrick ruling, Philip J Berg explains lawsuit

Philip J Berg explains his lawsuit in federal court that states that Obama is not eligible to be president. Watch the video”

Jeff Schreiber, law student, legal writer and blog owner contacted Philip J Berg regarding the new video that Mr. Berg produced. Jeff Screiber’s interview and insight will help many understand what is happening with the lawsuit:

http://www.americasright.com/

Philip J Berg’s site:

http://obamacrimes.com

Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama

http://obamaimpeachment.org

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama motion to dismiss, Mr. Berg response, Worldnetdaily.com article, October 4, 2008, Supreme Court, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Rush Limbaugh, Obama DNC in cahoots, Sue national media

There has been no ruling from Judge Surrick on the response from Philip J
Berg to the motion filed by Barack Obama to dismiss the lawsuit. Mr. Berg
filed the lawsuit on August 21, 2008, stating that Obama is not Qualified
to be president. Instead of providing a vault COLB or pledge of allegiance
to the US, Obama filed a motion to dismiss. John McCain provided a vault
COLB to congress.

Citizen Wells reported on September 25, 2008 that Philip J Berg was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court. Wordnetdaily.com came out with an article on October 4, 2008 that also quotes Mr. Berg as being prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court. I am told that Rush Limbaugh, among others, visits worldnetdaily. I have reason to believe that Rush has been visiting the Citizen Wells blog. Here are some quotes from Mr. Berg in the worldnetdaily.com article:
“DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate”

October 04, 2008

By Drew Zahn
“I think it’s outrageous,”
“The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they’re in cahoots.”
“Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties,”
“The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified,”
“I think it’s really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses.”

 

“I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.”
“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,”
If his lawsuit is dismissed Berg responded:

“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,”
“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,”
Read the World Net Daily article here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76933

Visit Philip J Berg’s website and help in this important cause:

http://obamacrimes.com

Sign the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

Philip J Berg files opposition and brief, Obama motion to dismiss, September 29, 2008, Berg response, Affects Hillary voters, FEC allowed campaign contributions, Obama not US citizen

Philip J Berg has filed a opposition and brief to the Obama motion to
dismiss his lawsuit. Mr. Berg made the filing today, Monday, September 29,
2008. Obama filed the motion to dismiss instead of producing a vault
COLB or pledge of allegiance to the US.  Here is the first part of Mr. Berg’s response:

 

 

                 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :

Plaintiff

 

 

:

vs.

 

 

:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :

 

Defendants

 

 

:

ORDER

ON DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

THIS CAUSE

 

 

came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.

Barclay Surrick on Defendant’s Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National

Committee’s Motion to Dismiss. Having reviewed the Motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition

to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby

 

ORDERED

 

 

that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6) is

 

 

DENIED. It is further ORDER

of this Court that the following discovery is

to be turned over to Plaintiff within three (3) days:

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version)

Birth Certificate; and

2. A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;

3. A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: September ______, 2008

______________________________

Hon. R. Barclay Surrick

United States District Court Judge

For the Eastern District of PA

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 1 of 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :

Plaintiff

 

 

:

vs.

 

 

:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :

 

Defendants

 

 

:

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO

DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S, MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within

Opposition and Brief in support thereof to Defendant’s, Barack Hussein Obama

[hereinafter “Obama”] and the Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter “DNC”]

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the following

grounds:

• Plaintiff has standing to bring suit against Obama and the DNC pursuant

to the following:

(1) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702;

(2)

 

 

Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to FEC v. Akins

, 524 U.S. 11 (1998);

(3)

 

 

Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1481(b);

(4) Plaintiff has Standing under 5 U.S.C. §552(B);

(5) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, Civil Rights

and Elective Franchise; and

(6) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction.

• Claims are stated in which relief can be granted. Pleadings in a Complaint

are that of Notice Pleading and not Fact Pleading;

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 2 of 35

• Plaintiff has suffered

 

 

and imminently will suffer injury – an invasion of a

legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized; and

 

 

The injury suffered by Plaintiff is the kind of injury that Congress

expected might be addressed under the statute. Plaintiff is within the zone of interest

protected by the statute or constitutional provision.

• It is imperative Obama be Court Ordered to turn over the following items

in order resolve the issues presented prior to the Presidential Election:

(a) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” version ( “original” long

version) Birth Certificate; and

(b). A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship; and

(c) A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.

At the time Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was requesting protections

from the Court in order to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the

Democratic Presidential Nominee as Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the

United States. However, Obama was nominated by the DNC as the Democratic

Presidential Nominee. For this reason, Plaintiff must amend his Complaint and will be

requesting this Court leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

 

 

 

Philip J Berg files opposition and brief, Obama motion to dismiss, September 29, 2008, Berg response, Pre filing analysis, Jeff Schreiber

Philip J Berg is filing a opposition and brief to the Obama motion to
dismiss his lawsuit. Mr. Berg makes the filing today, Monday, September 29,
2008. Obama filed the motion to dismiss instead of producing a vault
COLB or pledge of allegiance to the US.

Jeff Schreiber has reviewed a draft of the response. Here are exerpts from Mr. Schreiber:
“Among other authority cited by Obama and the DNC in support of the first defense was Hollander v. McCain, a recent case from New Hampshire in which the court held that Fred Hollander, asserting the claim that Arizona Sen. John McCain was ineligible for the presidency based upon his birth in the Panama Canal Zone, lacked standing to sue. In that case, the court cited several factors in its decision:
Regardless of McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, his candidacy did not constitute a “restriction on voters’ rights” as it did not preclude Hollander or anyone else from voting for another candidate in the New Hampshire primary.
The “generalized interest of of all citizens in constitutional governance” was not enough to claim harm.

Hollander failed to allege that any harm was indeed proximately “traceable” to McCain’s alleged unlawful conduct.
McCain was “unquestionably an American citizen.”
Berg is quick to distinguish Hollander. First, he says, Obama’s candidacy for the presidency in the general election prevents citizens from voting for Hillary Clinton despite her 18 million votes received in the primary election. Second, the harm Berg suffered is particular to him because he has been denied the constitutional right to cast his ballot for an eligible candidate. Third, his claims of injury can indeed be traced to Obama’s unlawful behavior, his “failure to disclose information to which American voters are entited.” And finally, the defendants have failed to show, as mentioned by the New Hampshire court in Hollander, that Sen. Obama is “unquestionably an American citizen.”

“If you take a closer look at the factors used by the court to decide Hollander v. McCain,” Berg said, “Those very same factors clearly come down in favor of me having standing in this case.””

“Interestingly enough, Berg also cites a case I had brought to his attention and asked him about, something we had read in school a while ago. Though Federal Election Commission v. Akins was a case which has nothing to do with citizenship–it questioned whether or not the American Israel Public Affair Commitee (AIPAC) could be considered a “political committee” under the Federal Election Campaign Act–the thing that struck me about it was the Court’s treatment of the plaintiffs. The Court, in that case, was concerned with “informational injury.” When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the court stated the following:

A voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes suffers a particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just as a government contractor, allegedly wrongfully deprived of information to be made available at the time bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even if all other bidders also suffered an injury.
Berg insists that he has similarly suffered an “informational injury” as a voter, and cites another part of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion which mentions that “anyone denied information under the Freedom of Information Act … has standing to sue regardless of his or her reasons.””

Read more analysis and facts from Jeff Schreiber:

 http://www.americasright.com/

Philip J Berg response, September 29, 2008, Obama motion to dismiss, Federal judge, Judge ruling, Constitution upheld?

Philip J Berg will respond to the federal judge today, Monday, September 29, 2008 regarding the Obama motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Instead of proving that he is a US citizen and qualified to be president, Obama filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from Mr. Berg that states Obama is not qualified to be president. John McCain presented a vault COLB to congress. Why doesn’t Obama present a vault COLB? Because he does not have one and was born in Kenya.

As soon as Mr. Berg’s response is filed, we will provide an update.

To view the timeline of the Philip J Berg lawsuit and learn more about it, click on the link at the top of the Citizen Wells blog.

Philip J Berg’s website:

http://obamacrimes.com

How you can help Philip J Berg with the lawsuit:

“In case you haven’t noticed, this lawsuit is being ignored by the political parties, the candidates, and the media.

We hope you agree with us that Berg v. Obama is an important lawsuit which must be resolved to ensure the integrity of our democracy, constitution, and elections.

As a result, we would like to request that you:

  • Phone in to radio and tv call-in shows. Mention the lawsuit and point out that it is important that the public be made aware of Berg v. Obama and the status of the lawsuit.
  • Contact the ombudsmen, tip-lines, and action reporters of your local newspapers and radio / tv stations. Ask them why they are not reporting on this lawsuit.
  • Post blog entries on popular blogs, especially the blogs of national radio and tv networks and major newspapers.
  • Encourage your freinds and associates to take the above actions. 
  • Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers.
  • Print the info sheet and distribute it.

The point of this is to make the public aware of the lawsuit, not to put pressure on the parties to the lawsuit or to affect the outcome.

Some of the talking points you might use are:

  • The constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to be elected president is questionable.
  • We could have a major constitutional crisis if the lawsuit is not resolved quickly.
  • If the lawsuit goes against Senator Obama, it is important that the Democrats have the opportunity to nominate another candidate for president early enough that the new nominee will have a fair chance to compete in the election.
  • Our country will be thrown into turmoil if Senator Obama is elected and then determined to be ineligible to serve as president.
  • Review the info sheet for additional talking points 

Don’t forget that we can also use financial contributions to sustain this effort. Please click the “Donate” button at the upper left of this window.

Thank you for your time and effort in supporting the resolution of Berg v. Obama in a timely fashion.”

Here is another way you can help stop Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama motion to dismiss, U.S. Supreme Court, FEC v. Akins, voter standing, James Akins, Related Lawsuits, subject matter jurisdiction, Jeff Schreiber commentary

On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, Obama and the DNC filed a motion to dismiss the Philip J Berg lawsuit that states Obama is not qualified to be president. Legal issues aside, in my opinion this is an admission that Obama is not qualified and is still a citizen of kenya and or Indonesia. Jeff Schreiber, a law student, legal writer and blog owner, has written his analysis of the lawsuit and motion to dismiss by Obama. here are some exerpts:

“Unlike the way in which the defense supported the 12(b)(6) defense, citing the particularities and treatment of the Declaratory Judgment Act by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the lack of standing defense did not surprise me in the least. In two recent posts on this matter, the first one eight and the other 12 days ago, I focused on the standing issue–specifically noting the disposition of the New Hampshire case, Hollander v. McCain, quoted in today’s motion–and pressed Berg on the issue.

I told him, just as I explained in these pages, that above everything else he needed to show an INJURY IN FACT. I mentioned that simply being a taxpayer, or a voter for that matter, has not proven to be enough to show injury or prove standing. In today’s motion, the defense stated that Berg failed to allege any “concrete, specific injury in fact to himself,” maintaining that voter disenfranchisement alone is not enough, that “a voter’s loss of the ability to vote for a candidate ‘of their liking’ does not confer standing because the actual injury is not to the voter but to the candidate.”

The Hon. William Alsup in the Northern District of California expressed similar feelings when he granted John McCain’s Motion to Dismiss–filed on similar grounds–on September 16 in Robinson v. Bowen, the citizenship-related action filed against the Arizona senator by the chairman of California’s American Independent Party, stating that even with plaintiff Markham Robinson’s status as party chairman and chances of becoming an elector, he still had “no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter.”

“Furthermore, even though filing so close to deadline is a common and accepted practice, Berg was steadfast in his belief that the longer the senator fails and refuses to produce the documentation sought in the Motion for Expedited Discovery filed on September 9, the more it looks like his allegations are correct, and he felt as though the timing of today’s motion was another attempt at obfuscation.

“Note, Jeff, that they waited until just before the deadline to file this, note that they’re just trying to prolong it and not deal with the issue,” he said. “It’s funny that on a day that McCain has stated that he’s suspending his campaign and wants the upcoming debate canceled so America can talk about the economic crisis, Obama says that he can campaign and talk it out at the same time, yet how come he’s not talking about his birth certificate? How come he’s hiding behind technical rules?”

“If you’re not qualified to be there,” Berg said, “get off the stage at this point in the game. Every day that goes by, every step that he takes to avoid showing those documents, which I don’t believe exist, indicates to me that he’s not natural-born.””

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/obama-dnc-file-motion-to-dismiss-in.html

“Truth or fantasy of Berg’s allegations aside, as I’ve stated before, I believe that eligibility goes beyond citizenship, that our nation’s founders wanted to ensure that the man–or woman, as it were–leading our country was boundlessly loyal to Her, and that they enshrined that hope in the fifth clause of Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution. I touched upon that intent almost a month ago after Berg’s suit was filed:

It was important to those courageous men that the future leaders of their fledgling nation understand what it means to be an American. Every clause in that document is there for a reason, each a lesson learned from fresh wounds of tyranny gone but not forgotten, and the framers made a point to require that, at the very least, a potential president must have been a citizen of the United States “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Unfettered, undivided devotion and loyalty to America was of the utmost concern; simply put, only those who fought and bled for Her independence, or at the very least understood the meaning behind, need for and potential of this great experiment could be trusted with its charge.
For that reason, completely apart from my obvious ideological leanings and political bias, it seemed counterintuitive to me that regardless of the slippery slope argument, a voter in our representative republic could not stand up and question the qualifications of those who wish to lead our nation as president and Commander-in-Chief. For me, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is or to which party he or she belongs — what kind of protection are we providing for the intent of our founders if we refuse to even consider such an action on its merits, or lack thereof, instead overlooking an inquiry into a matter of such great importance based upon procedural limitations which, by their very nature, ebb and flow over time?”

“A 1998 decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, FEC v. Akins, did allow for voter standing because the injury of which James Akins and the other respondents complained–the inability to obtain information, in this case as to the status of a political action committee–was concrete enough that widely-shared harm did not preclude standing. As a campaign finance-related action, FEC v. Akins may be a far cry from the nature of the claims set forth by Berg and the others, but it shows that the Court is willing to broaden the standard for injury in fact when the injury sustained by a mere voter either (1) falls within the “zone of interests” to be protected or regulated by a particular statute, or (2) is indicative of a large number of individuals who suffer the same injury. This, for me, seems to better align with the hopes of those who, wary of the King, wanted to secure power as close to the people as possible, and certainly seems to comport with the nature of the injury in the matters at hand.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/so-who-does-have-standing-anyway.html

Make sure to visit Jeff Schreiber’s site often.