Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations

According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.

Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:

  • A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and
  • A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is “damning,” and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James’ talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today’s filings and the legal and political ramifications of the defendants’ failure to respond.

“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”

Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.

Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:

The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.

Given the “usually devastating” consequence of failure to respond in time to a request for admissions such as those served upon Obama and the DNC on September 15, just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?

  • Admit you were born in Kenya.
  • Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
  • Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
  • Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
  • Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
  • Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
  • Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
  • Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
  • Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
  • Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
  • Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
  • Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
  • Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
  • Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
  • Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
  • Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

This is, however, by no means a slam dunk for Philip Berg, as there are several options for Barack Obama and the DNC at this point. The first, and most obvious, is the seemingly watertight argument that pursuant to Rule 26(f), a request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery detailed under that rule, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg’s request has not yet begun. Here, though, Berg could feasibly argue either that the request for admissions is not a true discovery mechanism and is actually meant to streamline the future need for discovery, or that the defendants’ acknowledged service of the request in their October 6 motion for protective order and failed, at that time, to specifically object or answer. The second option for the defense, somewhat related to the first, is that the motion for protective order rendered the requests null and void, but Berg may argue that the protective order effectively staying discovery was never issued by the court. Yet another option, still easily foreseen, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show (1) “good cause” regarding why there was no response and (2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. Here, Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards, that they cannot show “good cause” for failing to answer or object, and that withdrawing the admissions would cause undue prejudice.

Still, for Berg, the issue is clear. He simply wanted answers or objections, he said, and instead received nothing. Rule 36, according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.

“It all comes down to the fact that there’s nothing from the other side,” Berg said. “The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”


For more information and background on Philip Berg’s civil action against Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, look to the right-hand side of the America’s Right page for the list of related articles, updates and commentaries under the “BERG v. OBAMA @ AMERICA’S RIGHT” heading.

– Jeff


Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Apparantly Mr. Berg prevailed in summary judgement; here is a copy of the document.
    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 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.
    Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the
    Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby
    ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P.
    56(c) is GRANTED. This Court Declares Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein
    Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry
    Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen and is ineligible to
    run for and/or serve as President of the United States. The Democratic National
    Committee is hereby enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the
    Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and both the Democratic National
    Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning
    on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency. It is an ORDER
    of this Court that Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all
    ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.
    BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 27
    Dockets.Justia.com
    It is further ORDER of this Court; Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $48,300.00,
    representing all fees and costs associated with this suit to date.
    IT IS SO ORDERED
    Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________
    Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
    United States District Court Judge
    For the Eastern District of PA
    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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and
    THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
    Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within Motion
    for Summary Judgment and Brief in support thereof and moves this Court for an Order
    granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff and against Defendant’s, Barack Hussein
    Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and The Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter
    “DNC”] on all Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c)
    on the following grounds:
    1. Plaintiff served Discovery by way of Requests for Admissions and
    Request for Production of Documents upon Defendants, Obama
    and DNC, on September 15, 2008.
    2. Although Defendants, Obama and DNC, filed a Motion for a
    Protective Order staying all discovery pending the Court’s decision
    on a Motion to Dismiss, Defendants failed to serve Plaintiff with
    any Answers and/or Objections to the Requests for Admissions
    Served upon each Defendant, Obama and DNC. To date, the
    Court has never issued any Protective Orders.
    3. Failure to Answer or Object to Requests for Admissions within
    thirty [30] days deems the Request for Admissions “Admitted,”
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c).
    4. Since the Requests for Admissions are now deemed Admitted,
    there are not any genuine issues of material facts remaining and
    Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against Defendants, Obama and
    the DNC, as a matter of law.
    5. To date, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, has expended
    considerable time in pursuing this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff
    requests counsel fees and costs. In the amount of $48,300.00.
    WHEREFORE, for the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg,
    Esquire, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
    Summary Judgment against Defendants, Obama and the DNC as to all his claims and
    award counsel fees and costs to Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire in the amount of
    $48,300.00.
    Respectfully submitted,
    s/ Philip J. Berg
    Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________
    Philip J. Berg, Esquire
    Attorney in pro se
    555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
    (610) 825-3134
    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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
    JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, THE DNC AND OBAMA
    A. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
    Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party.
    Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the
    United States Constitution. Plaintiff and many other citizens of the United States have
    donated money and time to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the
    Democratic National Committee, in reliance on promises and assurances made by the
    DNC in the Democratic Party Agenda. It provides that the Democrat Party’s goals,
    among others, are to “restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of
    government”, to “restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all
    Americans” and to “uphold the Constitution.” To uphold the Constitution includes
    making sure that the Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to
    Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair
    and legitimate campaign.
    In vetting the Presidential candidate the DNC and FEC are required to ensure the
    eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential
    candidate, if elected, would be eligible to serve as President. To be eligible and qualified
    to run for and/or serve for Office of the President of the United States a person must be a
    “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I. The natural
    born citizen clause has prohibited many prominent Americans from becoming
    President, including Governor Schwarzenegger and former Secretaries of State
    Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.
    The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the
    United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship
    status:
    1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?
    2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?
    3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?
    If the answer to the first question is “yes” then Obama meets the citizenship requirements to
    be President. On the other hand, if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to
    the second or third question is “yes”, Obama is not eligible to be President.
    Plaintiff has learned through extensive investigation that Obama is not a “natural
    born” citizen. Plaintiff learned that Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya
    located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a
    United States citizen who was not old enough and did not reside in the United States long
    enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen. Under
    the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in
    1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire “natural
    born” United States citizenship if the United States citizen parent had been physically present
    in the United States for ten (10) years prior to the child’s birth, five (5) of those years being
    after age fourteen (14). Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America
    v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).
    Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet
    the age and residency requirements for her child to have acquired “natural born” United
    States citizenship. Therefore, Obama may not be considered a “natural born” United States
    citizen. There is no indication that Obama is a naturalized citizen either.
    In response to requests from Plaintiff and the general public for Obama to
    produce proof of his citizenship, Obama allowed the Daily Kos to post on their website
    an image of a Certification of Live Birth with Obama’s name on it purporting to be
    Obama’s birth certificate at http://www.dailykos.com. This same image was also placed on
    Obama’s website, http://fightthesmears.com and on another website located at
    http://factcheck.org. The image placed on these websites is of a Hawaiian document
    which is provided for children’s births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births
    abroad, which have been registered in Hawaii, whether the citizenship status was “natural
    born” or “naturalized”. Thus, the posting of Obama’s purported birth certificate did not
    prove Obama was a “natural born” citizen. Further, the images placed on these three (3)
    websites were later discovered by Document Image Specialists to be altered and forged
    images.
    It appears that Obama became an Indonesian citizen. Plaintiff discovered through
    investigation that Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who
    either signed a government form legally “acknowledging” Obama as his son or “adopted”
    Obama, either of which changed any citizenship status Obama had to a “natural” citizen
    of Indonesia. Obama was registered in a Jakarta public school as an Indonesian citizen
    by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was
    no other way for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia as Indonesia was
    under tight rule and was a Police State. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend
    their public schools and any time a child was registered for a public school, their name
    and citizenship status was verified through the Indonesian Government. These facts
    indicate that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, and therefore, he is not eligible to be
    President of the U.S.
    Plaintiff filed suit on August 21, 2008 seeking proof of Obama’s citizenship
    status. Defendants, Obama and the DNC’s Answers were due on or before September
    24, 2008.
    Plaintiff filed a Motion on September 09, 2008 for Expedited Discovery,
    Extensive Discovery, Deposition of Obama and Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman and a
    request for the appointment of a Special Master to be present during the depositions.
    Defendants failed to respond or oppose Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, which is still
    pending before this Court.
    On September 15, 2008, Plaintiff served discovery by way of Request for
    Admissions and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants Obama and the
    DNC.
    Instead of filing an Answer, Defendants, Obama and the DNC filed a Motion to
    Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff did not have
    standing and failure to state a claim which relief can be granted. Plaintiff Opposed the
    Defendants Motion to Dismiss and requested to file an Amended Complaint.
    Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint and attached his
    First Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A” on the early morning of October 6, 2008,
    document number fourteen (14) on the docket.
    On the afternoon of October 6, 2008, Plaintiff received a call from John P.
    Lavelle, Jr., counsel for the DNC and Obama in order to meet and confer regarding
    discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f). Mr. Lavelle
    requested a stay of discovery pending this Honorable Court’s decision on Defendants
    Motion to Dismiss currently pending. Plaintiff declined this request as Obama’s
    citizenship status is of National security as he is running for President of the United
    States. Mr. Lavelle stated he was filing a Motion for a Protective Order staying
    discovery pending a decision on the Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Shortly thereafter,
    Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order was filed with this Court as document number
    fifteen (15). This Court has not ruled on Defendants’ motion.
    The Presidential election is only two (2) weeks away. Obama is not a “natural
    born” citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as President of the United States. As a
    result, Plaintiff as well as many other United States citizens have been harmed and will
    continue to be harmed until Obama proves his citizenship status or withdraws as the
    Democratic Presidential candidate. Plaintiff as well as many United States citizens will
    have been deprived of their constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate and will
    lose the money they have invested in Obama in the elusive hope of “change”.
    The citizenship status of Defendant Obama is a critical issue and of concern to
    Plaintiff as well as the general public, which needs to be addressed prior to the
    Presidential election on November 4, 2008.
    Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding
    Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate
    the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two
    [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the
    matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status. The fact Obama is
    a U.S. Senator for Illinois and a Presidential candidate, he is open for public scrutiny and
    Plaintiff as well as all American Citizens have a right to question and receive proof of
    Obama’s citizenship status.
    Moreover, Defendants have failed to answer Plaintiff’s requests for Admissions
    in a timely manner, and those matters are automatically deemed admitted in accordance
    with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a); McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192
    F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists
    regarding Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to summary
    judgment as a matter of law.
    B. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS ARE
    DEEMED ADMITTED, THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO
    UNDISPUTED FACTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
    GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF:
    Request for Admissions were served upon Defendants, Obama and the DNC on
    September 15, 2008. Answers and/or Objections were due within thirty [30] days..
    Although Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order on October 9, 2008, the
    Court has never ruled upon their Motion and therefore, a Protective Order was not
    granted and discovery has never been stayed.
    Failure to Answer or Oppose Requests for Admissions deems them Admitted.
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36, McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D.
    492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000), Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.
    1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732 (1977); Siss v. County of Passaic, 75 F.
    Supp. 2d 325, 331 (D.N.J. 1999).
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 states in pertinent part:
    “(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding.
    A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to
    whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written
    answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its
    attorney“
    Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Defendants were simple and
    straightforward recitations of fact which could be admitted or denied and to which
    Defendants should have personal knowledge and familiarity. Despite the simplicity,
    Defendants failed to Answer and/or Object to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions. Since
    Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions are based solely on Plaintiff’s Complaint which
    addresses Obama’s non-natural born United States citizen status (Plaintiff’s Request for
    Admissions served upon Obama are attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and Plaintiff’s
    Requests for Admissions served upon the DNC are attached hereto as Exhibit “2”), the
    fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen was automatically deemed admitted upon
    Defendants’ failure to answer Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission in a timely manner.
    The admitted matter is conclusively established for purposes of the pending action. See
    American Auto Ass'n v.AAA Legal Clinic, 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991)
    (conclusive effect of admission applies equally to matters affirmatively admitted and
    those established by default). Therefore, there are no issues of material fact that remain
    and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, the DNC and Obama
    should be granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims.
    Admissions of fact made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 are
    “unassailable statement of facts that narrows the triable issues in the case.” Airco
    Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.29 1028,
    1037 (3rd Cir. 1988).
    For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
    against Defendants, Obama and DNC, should be immediately granted to all of Plaintiff’s
    claims.
    C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE and
    MUST BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF:
    Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c), Summary Judgment should
    be granted to Plaintiff because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff is
    entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242,
    247 (1986), Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 786 F.2d 564, 568 (3rd
    Cir. 1986). The Third Circuit Courts have considered the question of the proper interplay
    between the granting of a Summary Judgment and requests for admissions and have held
    that failure to respond to properly served admissions permits the entry of summary
    judgment when the facts deemed admitted are dispositive. See Anchorage Assocs. v.
    Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176 (3d Cir. 1990) (deemed admissions
    sufficient to support summary judgment); Freed v. Plastic Packaging Materials, Inc., 66
    F.R.D. 550, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1975). In this case, Defendants’ deemed admissions warrant
    the entry of a Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff because the deemed admissions
    address every element of Plaintiff’s claim and no genuine issues of material fact remain.
    For the above aforementioned reason’s Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
    against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be immediately granted to all of
    Plaintiff’s claims.
    D. CONCLUSION:
    For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,
    respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Grant his Motion for Summary Judgment
    against Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee, as
    to all of Plaintiff’s Claims.
    Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to declare Barack Hussein
    Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a
    Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” United States citizen and is
    ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.
    Plaintiff further requests this Honorable Court to Order The Democratic National
    Committee to remove the name of Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama
    a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro
    from the Presidential ballot and to enjoin Defendants from any further Presidential
    campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al.
    In addition, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to Order the Democratic
    National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al to pay all fees and costs associated
    with this suit in the amount of $48,300.00. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to
    Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /s Philip J. Berg
    Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________
    Philip J. Berg, Esquire
    Attorney in pro se
    555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
    (610) 825-3134
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in
    Support thereof, were served via electronic filing on the ECF System, this 22nd day of
    October 2008 upon the following:
    John P. Lavelle, Jr.
    Attorney I.D. PA 54279
    BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
    INGERSOLL, LLP
    1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    (215) 864-8603
    (215) 864-9125 (Fax)
    lavellej@ballardspahr.com
    Joseph E. Sandler
    SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC
    300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102
    Washington, D.C. 20003
    Telephone: (202) 479-1111
    Fax: (202) 479-1115
    sandler@sandlerreiff.com
    Robert F. Bauer
    General Counsel, Obama for America
    PERKINS COIE
    607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
    Telephone: 202.628.6600
    Facsimile: 202.434.1690 Attorney’s for Defendant’s
    RBauer@perkinscoie.com Barack Hussein Obama and
    The Democratic National Committee
    Benjamin A. Streeter, III, Esquire
    The Federal Election Commission (FEC)
    999 E. Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20463 In pro se
    bstreeter@fec.gov
    s/ Philip J. Berg
    ___________________________
    Philip J. Berg, Esquire
    Attorney in pro se
    555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
    (610) 825-3134

  2. Anonymous says:

    Are there any savy reporters following obama on this hawaii trip and reporting on his comings and goings. Are they watching the court house?

  3. Master Chief Whitney says:

    TO All,

    Is not this the United States Of America, a land governed by law and order? Our two largest political parties (Republican & Democrat) should be wanting to put an end to this outrage by bringing to the forefront, the Honesty and the Integrity of their leadership positions over this once GREAT NATION. Have we fallen this low, to embarrass the peoples of these United States of America?

    I hang my head low in shame and ask the Lord to instill a heart, mind and soul of courage in those in the leadership of our Nation, to lead this Nation and the world with all the Honesty, Truth, Integrity we have, for all to see. No one will long to follow a course of deception.

    V/R

    Master Chief Kent M. Whitney
    USN Retired

  4. Nicholas says:

    It’s been a few days since any updates. What is going on? I think this is great, but I feel like Obama will pull a Clinton and this whole thing will pass under the radar and nothing will come of it. Too bad.

  5. Slim says:

    IF Obama gets elected, and then is proven to be a not eigible, do we have another eletion, put McCain in, or just over look it as a joke?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Man you Obamabots are sure giving a strong showing. Even though you are on the losing side at this site. This site is dedicated to truth, not lies like Obama and his crew. Get use to it bots your man might just not be able to be president, and its driving you nuts. So much that you have to attack sites like this. So this goes out to the bots STFU and listen you might learn something.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, this is your friend Brad. Unless I am mistaken, FRCP 12(a)(4) makes clear that Obama’s motion to dismiss means he doesn’t have to answer–the need to answer is tolled.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm

    Makes sense, right? You shouldn’t have to answer unless you know the result of a motion to dismiss. Seems like a pretty sound CivPro rule.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Speaking as a high-class, intelligent, erudite, and experienced individual, I have come to the conclusion that you are substantially overweight. I order that you obey a strict diet and follow my Writ of STFU for the next two weeks. Any white-knuckled complaining on the internet might be later diagnosed as something… far more serious.

    P.S.: You giant idiot.

  9. john baggs says:

    How do we get this information out? The liberal media cancer will not talk about because they will lose their “messiah”
    It will be swept under the rug and you’ll all be as branded conspiracy nuts.
    I heard this before when Israel intel said his Birth Certificate was a fake when he visited Jerusalem.
    The American public, especially our sadly misinformed youth need to know that their pied piper is just that a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  10. Anonymous says:

    For all of you who believe this load of bull-all I can say is,sorry about your penis.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Obama IS a US citizen

    Wow, you should have checked your facts before getting people in an uproar over nothing.

    Factcheck.org provides evidence that Obama is a US citizen:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  12. Anonymous says:

    It is OBVIOUS Obama & minions fled to Hawaii to coach granny on what to say if seized upon, AND to block her from the media. Heaven forbid someone were able to speak with her and she should blurt the truth on Obama being born outside of the US and thus INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA! If she really were that ill Obama SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY gone to see her rather than campaign his cause a little more!

    This is the "smoking gun" info the Clintons had but were "motivated" to not produce. Ask youself, why did Bill Clinton immediately go from nasty racial remarks about Obama, to gladly campaigning for him?!? FOLLOW THE MONEY!

  13. Gene says:

    Hello all.
    I have been following this matter for some time. Hence, a long post. Sorry, but you may find it useful.
    First, the hoopla over the posted birth certificate is misplaced. It is not a birth certificate, but the casual reader would not notice that. (i.e. I missed it.) It is a certificate of live birth, dated several days after the birth.
    Second, if you do magic on the computer you will see the certificate was stamped on the back in, I seem to recall, 2007. Mr. Obama went and got one (by law it must be him. Why get this form?)
    Third, The certificate will not justify getting a passport as it is not proof of citizenship, only that someone was born. I don’t believe it says where, either.
    In Mr. Obama’s case, there are two possible hospitals both of which have been named by B O and his sister as the place of birth.
    Fourth, Don’t forget the other curious evidence: grandmother says she was present in Nirobi for the birth; the Indonesian passport under Obama’s likely real name; a record of his trip to Pakistan under the Indonesian passport; his indication of religion as Moslem; and no pertinent records have been released – even the customary medical ones?
    So, before calling people fools or being condescending, do some homework. By the way, insulting the messenger merely demonstrates a lack of argument.
    This is not over until it is over. The truth is Mr. Obama has defaulted, from what I hear. This is weird, if you are used to law stuff. That is an admission in adjectival law.
    It does not matter if Obama stalls past the election. If he is not a U.S. citizen, he will be denied the office.
    — Just produce the proof! A simple thing. Lawyers have already appeared in this matter. Why not just produce the certificate?
    — This is what Mr. Berg says and he is a liberal Democrat.
    (Have you noticed the attacks on him as though his credibility means something in court? i.e. No argument, like Plain has many shoes. Do people really think like this? Or is it just another machine attack to silence an opponent?)
    Finally, one person raised an interesting issue: Why is Mr. Obama in Hawaii? The line is his grandmother has a bad hip. So, he visited for an hour at her home (relying on the sloppy news media.).
    Does this make sense in the most important week of your life? Recall Hawaii demands he be the one who gets documents. I don’t know if they can be forged.
    This is the real game, here, so keep your eyes on the ball.
    For those bemoaning the Obama media not covering this, rest assured the Court is. Besides, the unmet accusation will begin to surface from the grass roots right about now, not the McCain clown machine.
    (FYI – Mr. Berg has been told the GOP was in Kenya earlier in the year. More and more interesting – either a spring is cocked or the case is not going anywhere. Or, I guess, McCain, whatever his logic, won’t go directly at Mr. Obama, although many probably think he has. Trust me, he hasn’t.

  14. Anonymous says:

    To Slim above, who said:

    >IF Obama gets elected, and then is proven to be a not eigible,
    >do we have another eletion, put McCain in, or just over look it as a joke?

    The short answer is, if the case is decided before inauguration, Biden would act as President while a new election took place. If it's decided after inauguration, Biden would become President, and would choose a Vice President, who would have to be confirmed by a majority of both houses of Congress. It's all there in the Constitution, mostly 20th Amendment. It's a short document. Read it sometime.

    But then, in the case of a decision between the election and the casting of votes by the electors, technically, I'm not really sure. The Constitution doesn't describe how Electors will be selected – that's a state-by-state decision. So each state could choose what to do themselves (See 3 USC Chapter 1).

    But, of course, this is all hypothetical. In reality, if the judge really does decide Obama’s ineligible, it will go to appeal, and the decision to remove Obama would be stayed while that decision was being made. And the Appeals Court would rule that Berg has no standing to bring this case, similar to the rulings found in both of McCain’s eligibility cases.

    And that would be fine, because the merits can be discussed in Congress, and if he is ineligible, he will be disqualified.

    But come on, people. Can you prove your citizenship? How? Oh, you produced a birth certificate? Apparently that isn’t enough. An announcement in the local paper, too? Oh, Barack Obama has that, too. Right. Of course. That was put there in case he some day he ran for President of the United States. Really. Just read the evidence on Factcheck.org. Maybe you don’t trust that, and just about every other non-partisan site out there. But the only reason I can see for that is blind partisanship….

  15. Tiffany says:

    Wow, you people are scary!! Look it up, Philip Berg also files a lawsuit against Pres. Bush. He is just an attention seeking ambulance chaser! But go ahead, hide in your houses and scare yourselves to death with your conspiracy theories, convince yourself that Obama’s name makes him a terrorist, whatever. This time next year go back and read your posts and feel like big dummies.

  16. Ted says:

    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!!!

  17. Susan says:

    I was born in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I have a birth certificate with lines and creases from years my mom had it in her “precious items” envelope.

    My sister, born in Germany during my father’s service to HIS COUNTRY (THE UNITED STATES) was able to get a CERTIFIED COPY of her birth certificate only after many, many hours of work and documents, and she had to be present.

    My husband, another UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and retired UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COLONEL, has a birth certificate, Air Force ID and MEDICAL RECORDS.

    Joe the Plumber probably has a birth certificate and is probably a US CITIZEN.

    Why was Barry Hussein S Obama, who has no birth certificate, no service records and no medical records, able to even FILE to run for PRESIDENT?

    Any documents he presents in the future will be FRAUDULENT. Bless Granny if she is sick – but this trip of his is definitely to BRIBE someone at one of the two hospitals to get him a “reasonably acceptable” fascimile of a birth certificate.

    As we, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, enter our socialism chapter, please document the way our country was, so your children will know what a great country we used to be….before Barry Hussein Obama.

    As his Reverend Wright implied, we will definitely be the United Socialist States of America.

    God Bless the UNITED STATES as we endure this most horribly dark hour. If this person is illegally placed into office, our best days are behind us.

  18. Dom says:

    This Obama candidacy is worst than 9-11 affair. Like all them terror attack, nobody pay attention until it hit home. We voters has the right to know. The Media is now like the world of dictatorship. Everything that is told about Obama is the good thing and the bad thing are reported on the Mc Cain. This is the truth on Dictatorial country and now we have a candidate that promotes Socialism, a terrorist associates and has a communist, pervert mentor like Frank Marshall Davis. Are we going to wait for him to hold the office before we rise? Wake up Americans.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Well, the October surprise will hit the fan, tomorrow and Tuesday.

    check out: http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/10/andy-martins-disclosure-of-barack.html

    His lies are a heap of shame to bring on himself…..

  20. Justin F says:

    The other question to ponder about is, IF Obama is caught, after the election or before the election… who is the next in line? would it be Mccain? Biden or the other potential Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton?

    is there any laws concerning this part?

Speak Your Mind

*