Tag Archives: Philip J Berg files opposition and brief

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/