Tag Archives: Philip J Berg lawsuit

FEC 2008 FOIA request, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Old information viewed with 20 20 hindsight, Citizen Wells exclusive

FEC 2008 FOIA request, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Old information viewed with 20 20 hindsight, Citizen Wells exclusive

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I was going through some old paperwork recently and reexamined a 2008 FOIA request I made to the FEC regarding any information they had about the Philip J Berg lawsuit which had just included them as a defendant. With the clarity of 20 20 hindsight, several items of interest are presented.

The Citizen Wells blog was definitely in the mix questioning many aspects of Obama’s past in 2008. This blog was one of the first entities anywhere to announce the Berg lawsuit due to the efforts of faithful followers. Here are the actual heads up that we received.

“Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Subject: About to break news”

“My name is XXXXXXX XXXXXXX of XX. I have been working with Phil Berg on
this project. Here’s the scoop.

Attorney Phil Berg of Philadephia, PA alleges that Obama is not a us
citizen nor his he “natural born” and within the next 30 minutes will
be filing a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order
prohibiting Obama from running for Office of the President and
enjoining the DNC from naming Obama as a nominee for Democratic
Presidential election.

Go to the US District Court, Eastern District of PA, 2nd floor Clerk’s
Office on 601 Market Street in Philadelphia, PA”

“Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Subject: Update from xxxxxxx”

“I just spoke to Phil Berg. The suit is filed in Philadelphia in the
US District Court, Eastern District of PA, at 601 Market St, 2nd
floor District Clerk’s office. There will be an emergency hearing in
the morning to determine if they will issue the temporary injunction
barring him from running anymore.”

On August 21, 2008, the following was reported at Citizen Wells.

“We were given a heads up earlier that a complaint was being filed in US District Court, Eastern District of PA. The complaint is a follows: ”for an emergency temporary restraining order prohibiting Obama from running for president, and enjoining the DNC from nominating Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-citizenship-federal-court-challenging-barack-obama%e2%80%99s-qualifications-to-be-president-us-district-court-eastern-district-of-pa-philip-j-berg-complaint-filed/

From the FOIA documents sent to me.

Cover letter pg 1, 2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423265/FEC-2008-FOIA-request-Philip-Berg-lawsuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423694/FEC0002

Within approx. 24 hours of the filing of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit, the following memo surfaced. Notice “Re: Victory in Berg v. Obama” What does this mean?

Scribd pg 3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423970/FEC0003

Letter to FEC referencing an email.

Scribd pg 6

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49425436/FEC0006

“August 18, 2008″

“This is a request for an opinion”

“email which I have received from a friend in Arizona”

Email received by letter author from a friend in Arizona.

Scribd pg 7

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49425908/FEC0007

“I did not find anything to confirm or refute this story. Should everyone (extra should) wait til later to see if this hits the fan?”

Scribd pg 8

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49426322/FEC0008

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help answer this question?”
Response from FEC.

Scribd pg 4

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49424393/FEC0004

“You ask the Commission to consider issues arising in an email circulating on the internet. The email, which is attached to your letter, asserts that a candidate for President is not eligible to be President because the candidate may not be a U.S. natural-born citizen. You ask how the legal requirements for obtaining and maintaining U.S. citizenship would apply to the assertions made in the email.”

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”
Observations.

The letter is dated 3 days before the Berg lawsuit.  

The wording above indicates to me that the person who sent the email and the person who wrote the letter are likely involved in the election process as election officials or are involved in a political party.

The following comments are particularly interesting.

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped?”

“Should everyone wait til later to see if this hits the fan?”

The FEC response states “your inquiry does not qualify as an advisory opinion request.”

However, the FEC website states:

“Election Administration

The FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a central exchange for information and research on issues related to the administration of federal elections on the state and local level.”

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Clarifying_Law
Who “dropped the ball”? Obviously the FEC.

Natural Born Citizen, US Code Title 8 Section 1401, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama eligibility

Natural Born Citizen, US Code Title 8 Section 1401, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama eligibility

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“dedicated his life as a newsman and as a public official to the unrelenting search for truth.”…Lyndon B. Johnson on Edward R. Murrow’s passing

I have encouraged all entering this blog to question everything and seek the truth, the facts.

This was posted last night on Citizen Wells by GORDO.

“Submitted on 2011/01/15 at 10:36 pm
CW —

Do you know anything about this site?

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

“Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

[list at link]

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
==========
The above sentence is frequently used to justify calling Obama a natural born citizen.”

Clicking on the link yielded the following:

“Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”

Here is the actual code.

US Code Title 8 Section 1401

Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth.
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html

Philip J Berg, First Amended Complaint October 6, 2008.
“76. Obama, if born in Kenya would have made him a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, because of the 1940 Naturalization Act, June 1952, Obama’s mother would have had to be nineteen (19) in order for Obama to be a “natural born” United States citizen.
Obama’s mother was only eighteen (18) when she had Obama and therefore was not old enough to meet the residency requirements under our laws at the time of Obama’s birth and be able to register her son’s birth as a “natural born” citizen.”
http://obamacrimes.com

Now you know the truth, the facts regarding Obama’s Natural Born Citizen deficiency per the laws in place at the time of his birth somewhere.

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Update, July 31, 2010, Alex Jones interview, Citizen Wells open thread

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Update, July 31, 2010, Alex Jones interview

Why has Obama employed so many private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

Alex Jones interviews Philip J Berg who initiated a lawsuit in August of 2008 to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Philip J Berg lawsuit, December 4, 2008, Update, US Supreme Court, Writ of Certiorari, Obama not eligible, Supreme Court Justices will decide, Conference review

Here is the latest update from Philip J Berg Dated December 4, 2008:

“We understand everyone is eager to learn what occurred on December 1, 2008, at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a rumor claiming Mr. Obama was Court Ordered by Justice Souter to turn over his birth certificate by December 1, 2008. This is NOT true.

When a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is filed the Defendants automatically are given thirty (30) days to respond. They are not required to respond. The end of thirty (30) Days in the Berg v. Obama case was December 1, 2008. Keep in mind, the Defendants could have mailed in a response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Court allows approximately a week for mail. If this is the case, the envelopes must be postmarked December 1, 2008.

In the afternoon, December 1, 2008, Lisa, Mr. Berg’s Assistant contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke with the Clerk. The Clerk informed Lisa Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari would be distributed to all nine (9) Justices and a conference should be set within ten (10) days. As I’m sure you are aware, during the conference the Justices will discuss Mr. Berg’s Petition for the Writ of Certiorari and decide whether or not to grant or deny the Petition. It only takes four (4) out of nine (9) Justices to agree to grant Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Justices can also make other Orders during the Conference.

Mr. Berg’s Office also learned the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission

Additional documents will be filed within the next couple of days. All Legal briefs will be posted on our website, so please continue checking back for updates.”

Help Philip J Berg uphold the US Constitution:

Philip J Berg lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Update December 2, 2008, Emergency Injunction, Writ of Certiorari deadline, Obama and DNC have not responded

Jeff Schreiber has provided an update from Philip J Berg on his US Supreme Court Writ of Certiori.

“One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer, Berg is filing a motion in the Court in an attempt to further prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the United States.

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts — in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

“As I’ve said over and over and over again, we’re headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is qualified under the United States Constitution to be president,” Berg said.

“It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief,” he said, “that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials … which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them.”

The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to respond to Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however, are allowed two more days for mail service). On Wed., Nov. 19, the Federal Election Commission formally waived its right to respond to Berg’s petition and, while such waiver is not necessary, neither is any such response to a petition. Like the FEC, Obama and the DNC could essentially bank on the low odds that any one matter will be heard by the Court (only somewhere between 70 and 120 of the approximately 8,000 petitions are granted each year), or rely on arguments already made that Berg lacks standing to sue at all.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Washington Times Ad, US Supreme Court appeal, Obama not eligible, US Constitution must be upheld, November 17, 2008

The Philip J Berg lawsuit that states that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president is still before the
Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Berg and many citizens insist that we uphold the US Constitution.
Mr. Berg has an ad in the Washington Times for Monday, November 17, 2008.

bergad

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Obama not eligible, Supreme Court Justices, Berg appeal, Help defend the US Constitution

I just received the following email from Philip J Berg’s office. Mr. Berg’s
lawsuit is one of two lawsuits currently before the Supreme Court of the
United States. Both lawsuits state that Barack Obama is not eligible
to be president. Here is the email:

“November 13, 2008

 

 

We have received a lot of emails asking what you can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.

 

You as citizens can individually address letters to all the Court Justices and address your concerns regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as the President of the United States according to the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

 

United States Supreme Court

1 First Street NE

Washington DC 20543

 

 

The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:

 

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Supreme Court Justice David Souter

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

 

Respectfully,

 

Lisa

Assistant to Philip J. Berg

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

 

Obamacrimes.com”

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“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.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.” 

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

Philip J Berg Lawsuit, Press Release, November 7, 2008, US Supreme Court, Writ of Certiorari, Waiting on response from Obama, DNC

Philip J Berg provided a press release on Friday, November 7, 2008. Here is Mr. Berg’s press release:

“U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) – 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 filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants’ response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.

#  # #

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
philjberg@obamacrimes.com philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Supreme Court petition, Update, November 3, 2008, Jeff Schreiber, Eve of Election ,Berg Cautiously Optimistic

Philip J Berg is cautiously optimistic regarding his petition to the US Supreme Court to delay the election until a ruling can be made. Jeff Schreiber has Mr. Berg’s latest remarks:

“Monday, November 3, 2008
Berg Cautiously Optimistic on Eve of Election
 
On a day which saw another eligibility-related lawsuit, this one in Connecticut, bite the dust, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg remains cautiously optimistic after taking his own dismissed case to the highest court in all the land.

“At this point, we’re waiting and hoping and praying that Justice Souter rules in our favor and delays tomorrow’s election,” said Berg, mentioning as well that he filed a supplemental argument with the Court today. “They have the power. The United States Supreme Court has the power. They stopped the count in Florida in 2000, I was there in the panhandle when they stopped the count.”

As has been written in these pages before, the odds are extremely long that Berg’s case is given an audience with the Supreme Court, as only 70 to 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions are granted, and the odds are infinitely longer that Berg’s emergency motion is granted.

“The odds are slim,” Berg said. “If the election goes on tomorrow as planned, we start going after the Electoral College on Wednesday. December 15 becomes our deadline. There’s still time. The Electoral College requires that a candidate be eligible, so we’re not stopping, that’s for sure.”

Unless, of course, Obama does not prevail tomorrow, in which case Berg says that he will continue his efforts “to bring out the truth about the fraud perpetrated against this nation.””

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com