Federal Election Commission Files Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Proper Jurisdiction

Because of its status as a government entity, the Federal Election Commission was given until today to file an answer to the original complaint filed by attorney Philip Berg on August 21, 2008. This afternoon, the FEC met that deadline when it filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, answering Berg’s complaint by arguing that he “lacks standing to raise the issue of a candidate’s constitutional eligibility.”

“Moreover,” the motion reads, “even if Berg had standing to raise the constitutional eligibility issue, the Commission should be dismissed as a party to this case because it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.”

Benjamin Streeter, the filing attorney from the office of the general counsel for the Federal Election Commission refused to comment. (I felt I should mention it, but please don’t read into it too much. Remember that I’m just a regular guy with a political blog, okay? — Jeff)

Like in the motions to dismiss filed by Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, the FEC maintains that Berg fails to meet the minimum requirements of standing.

Three elements constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing: (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct of the defendant (traceability), and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court … The injury-in-fact required by Article III is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “concrete and particularized” as well as “actual or imminent,” rather than “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” The injury cannot be merely a generalized grievance about the government that affects all citizens or derives from an interest in the proper enforcement of the law.

That final sentence, from FEC v. Akins, truly shows the similarity between the issue of voter standing and the issue of taxpayer standing. Just as you or I could not sue the United States of America claiming to have standing simply because we are taxpayers, the FEC contends–just as was contended by Obama and the DNC, as well as the defendants in the three similar cases against John McCain–that voters cannot raise the issue of constitutional eligibility just because they are voters.

The FEC also argues that, because it has no jurisdiction to enforce the constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates, it should be dismissed from this case. Instead, the Commission only has jurisdiction over campaign finance aspects of federal campaigns.

None of these statutes [the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, or the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act] delegates to the FEC authority to determine the constitutional eligibility of federal candidates, and Berg does not allege otherwise. Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president. Thus, because the Commission has no authority to take action against Senator Obama as suggested by Berg, the Commission should be dismissed from this case with prejudice.

Upon speaking with Philip Berg, the Philadelphia attorney mentioned that he was not surprised, that he felt he had already established his standing, and that the other argument by the FEC would be taken into consideration.

“We did not make specific allegations against them in our first complaint, however we have done so in our amended complaint,” Berg said, noting that his motion for leave to amend is among the dozen or so pending pleadings before the court. “We will carefully look at their motion and what we have here, and make a decision at that point. Even so, the Federal Election Commission should ideally be one of the checks and balances in the system to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen.”



  1. Anonymous says:

    Where is this mysterious Judge Surrick I keep hearing about? Has anyone actually seen him lately?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Hi Jeff,

    I repeat my message to one of your previous articles and I have a request to you (after a short introduction).

    1. Now all defendants (including FEC) asked to dismiss the case.

    2. After getting info that among thousands possible attorneys Berg was chosen by API as an attorney for API I got a strange feeling that the whole API's story is just a huge hoax. And the goal of that API's story is to trap Berg into a mix of API's story together with his lawsuit against Obama & DNC. This way after finding out eventually that API's story is a hoax, the Berg's lawsuit would be buried. Maybe I'm too cautious and wrong, but I have such a feeling.

    Because of that I think it would be better just to focus on spreading a word on VIDEO "October Surprise" (about Berg's lawsuit). So I repeat again a (little updated) comment that was sent three times to your previous articles.

    My request:

    if you find this message (or at least an idea of it) useful, please use it in your future article(s) – it will intensify
    this message in many times more. Edit it as you wish.

    And now I'm repeating that message:
    The clock is ticking. There is a sense to repeat a (little updated)
    comment from http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/obama-dnc-file-motion-to-dismiss-bergs.html
    made on Oct 20, 2008 at 11:34PM
    Ladies & Gentlemen,

    CNN knows about Berg's lawsuit and simply "dismissed" it. All defendants asked the judge to dismiss the case. The Judge
    probably will wait until after elections. It leaves only one
    possibility to "win" this case – let know American people about its
    existence (they don't know because MSM don't inform about it), and
    they will decide this case during elections knowing this information
    and according their hearts.

    VIDEO "October Surprise" has at this moment more than 2,100,000 views. It has to be more than 200,000,000 to be effective. Please email a message (like below) to as many addresses as you can. And let's see.

    Subject: "October Surprise"

    Not eligible to be President of the US? Why???


    Watch VIDEO:

    Obama's Citizenship: I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise) 11 min

    The same VIDEO can be seen here:

    October 11, 2008
    "This could be the game changer"

    or here

    Saturday, October 11, 2008
    "Philip Berg Interview Hits YouTube"

    It seems this matter is of interest for everybody.

    Please e-mail it to everyone you can think about.


  3. Anonymous says:

    How is a voter’s “right to know” not implicit in their right to vote, especially when reasonable doubt about a candidate’s eligibility is in evidence?

    Why does a voter not have a right to know if a candidate for POTUS is indeed eligible? How does the denial of this serve the public interest, especially when the candidate is the protagonist in seeking the vote? Is there no fundamental duty on the part of the candidate to disclose the proof of their eligibility?

    What good is the right to vote if there is no right or mechanism to compel proof said candidate is eligible, especially when the requirements for eligibility are set forth in the Constitution? What justice is served by encrypting the Constitutional test for eligibility inside a procedural lockbox that no American voter may be allowed to open?

    How does this serve the intent of the Constitution’s framers? How does this service justice or balance the public interest or its right to know the answer to question raised by the Constitution itself?

  4. Jet says:

    Congress should expand the mandate of the FEC to include verifying the eligibility of candidates for public office within the Federal government. Of course, with the Democrats in charge in Congress, it will not be in their best interest right now to see this happen with Obama as their candidate for POTUS.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Jeff – how about putting a PAYPAL button on your site? You spend hours educating us – you should get a consulting fee. This site keeps me up to date with real info AND does not bombard me with advertisements. Think about it! I pay for a newspaper that gives me only MSM crap….you are worth it.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Second, Multiple posters protest, in various terms, WHAT IS A VOTER TO DO??? WHO DOES HAVE STANDING????

    It’s really simple: V-O-T-E

    And talk to your family, your friends, and your neighbors about voting. You can try discussing this case. That doesn’t work with many. Ok – so then talk to them about the issues that DO matter to them: Do they care about offshore drilling? Compare the two candidates’ policies for them. Are they pro-life? Compare the two candidates’ policies.

    The “feeling” of hopelessness – of reliance on the courts to solve a problem – is troubling, especially coming from some conservatives. Stop waiting for someone else to fix your problem! Get off your patookas and get working the election!


    Well, Jeff has addressed these issues and arguments multiple times. Read back through his posts!! The “upshot” is that under Hollander, only a political opponent has standing to sue. (So, if you believe this is “THE” Issue, you should be contacting McCain and asking him to “Put Country First” by joining the suit.)

    Under Robinson, the process is, according to the Constitution, (1) Voters choose; (2) Electors vote; (3) Congress considers any challenges to qualifications to be elected. Then, and only then, would any court involvement be appropriate, if at all.

  7. Aussie says:

    Jeff, Can you envision the Berg case getting to scotus, soon I hope, where scotus considers the following:

    1. a presidential election x days away
    2. candidate A according to msm has a lead
    3. candidate A may not have a bc and if true that fact will come out later

    and then decides that instead of impacting an election now by requiring nat born status before the election, it would be better to wait until later an inaugurate a VP elect who was elected on false pretense?

    I realize there are a lot of assumptions in there, but can you even envision that?

  8. Me says:

    I have a practical question that I hope someone can answer for me. I don’t travel much and do not have a passport, so I know little about passports. I know Philip Berg noted in his suit that Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan as a young man on his Indonesian passport and the reason he did so was because he did not have a U.S. passport. Now for my question that I hope someone can answer and call me silly: Is it realistic to think that Obama continues to renew and travel on his Indonesian passport as a U.S. Senator? Wouldn’t he have to get a U.S. passport, which would require a long form birth certficate to acquire? Wouldn’t the U.S. State Department investigate thoroughly before issuing a U.S. passport?

  9. Ironsides says:

    I have a feeling that if this expose of Obama’s citizenship is proveable, that Obama, Biden and all the leftys would really play with it to demand and end to immigration laws, and an end to national borders.

    If Obama gets into office, I think that will be a strong possibility, and maybe something Biden was thinking about the other day, in his lecture about a serious test Obama will be put to soon after he’s elected.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Colin Powell looking for job or Realy approve Barack Obama


  11. Donna C says:

    I have emailed Fox News, I pray Obama never gets in office. Think of ALL the millions he has wasted. He IS getting public funds now. he told McCain he wouldn’t but he is recieving them NOW. This is a democratic power stunt, they have another smutty incident to hide. Thanks Jeff and Berg, DON’T GIVE UP! WE need you both!!

  12. Jeanine says:


    It seems like people are thinking too far. The FEC simply asked for the case to be dismissed. The court has not ruled on any motions. There is a lot of discussion regarding standing…. I went back to your posting on September 16, when the case against John McCain in California was dismissed for lack of standing. You noted at that time that Mr. Berg mentioned that in the initial hearing the judge asked questions regarding Mr. Berg’s standing and did not dismiss the case at that time….which he could have if that was going to be the end of it.

    Anyway, when I went back to that posting, it gave me a little hope since this case is still pending with no ruling from the judge.

    Thank you for the updates.


  13. Anonymous says:

    Regarding “me’s” Passport question:

    Everyone recall the recent break-in into the US Passport office earlier this year…I think it was in March. OBAMAs file was accessed during that “break-in”…Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!

  14. Anonymous says:

    Hello Jeff,

    Thanks a lot for your blog and your updates.

    One thing is sure, Berg is onto something really BIG because Hussein Obama and his gang would have long ago provided the documents to prove his eligibility if he had been really eligible!!!
    Conclusion: I am now 10,000% sure that Berg’s accusations are completely true!!

    Now, you might think, Obama is toast and I tell you that this liar and master deceiver is not toast yet! And if Hussein and his gang can delay this case up until after the elections, then if Hussein would be elected then we are in big problems ahead!!

    And that is exactly what Obama and his gang want–to reach the following situation: Obama is elected as PotUSA and quite longer after he is elected the case unfolds in favor of Berg but it is kind of too late to change the elections results!!!!

    For those who like thriller, they have seen nothing so far.

    But the behavior of Hussein Obama and his gang proves, without the shadow of a doubt, that they are completely guilty and that the accusations made by Berg are complete valid (at least for most of them and for the ones at least that define the natural born citizenship requirement).

    Keep us posted because we are just at the beginning of one of the biggest scandals in the history of the USA. Scandal because not only Obama knew he was not eligible to become president of the USA but the top Democrats in charge of the vetting process knew too!!!

    The behavior of Hussein Obama and his gang is a shame because basically their behavior says to the MILLIONS of voters “f-k you all, we are the Constitution of the USA and Obama is above the Constitution of the USA!!!”
    Why? Maybe Obama has the right also to another racist affirmative action but this time for the position of PotUSA!!!

    If the Americans knew the way Obama and his gang have behaved in this case, they would seriously question Obama’s eligibility in this case.
    The truth is mainstream America and most Americans have no clue about this case Berg vs. Obama!!

    KEEP FIGHTING, MR. BERG, AND MAKE SURE TO SHOW HOW MUCH OBAMA IS OF A LIAR AND DECEIVER OF THE VILEST KIND!! A closet Muslim, a bogus convert to Christianity only for political gains, a member of a church for more than 20 years that professed hatred against whites, hatred against America and Americans, supporters of the most radical Muslim groups (Hamas, etc.), anti-Semite and anti-Israel, supporters of the most leftist radicals (Ayers, etc.). In one word: Obama is really ugly!!! How can this liar and master deceiver ever be PotUSA?!!!

  15. Anonymous says:

    first off – I am not a lawyer or claim extensive legal knowledge outside of google –

    Please see this opinion by the Supreme court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=524&page=11

    here is a key sentence: "Nonetheless, it concluded, AIPAC was not a "political committee" because, as an issue-oriented lobbying organization, its major purpose was not the nomination or election of candidates."

    This ruling that is cited for the Case Jeff mentions – was someone with a law suite against the FEC for a lobby organization. This organization did not have any responsibility or direct participation in the nomination or election of a candidate. The DNC DOES!

    Just because the FEC gets relief from the suite from this ruling if the judge sees fit – does not mean that the same is due for the DNC or Obama inherently.

    Sometimes defendants are included in a case where they are related and have no direct responsibility. Let the courts rule and interpret the pinion. It is only beginning. As of know there is nothing going on but paper shuffling and the courts time allocated.

  16. Anonymous says:


    Can you or someone who works in law give us a time frame to expect a ruling one way or the other in this case? I know many of us are getting ancy because we are not as familiar with the court system and don’t see why this isn’t a simple clear cut consitutional case, at least as far as discovery.

  17. Anonymous says:

    If I were Obama I wouldn’t give this issue any attention either. He’s obviously an American citizen born, raised, and educated. He works hard his whole life and then some jackass has the nerve to come along and question whether or not he’s even allowed to be in his home?

    Give me a break here. This issue will die a painful death. Go hunt another white whale.

  18. Anonymous says:

    This is completely unbelievable. As REAL Americans sit here and read this, i am sure they are feeling exasperated! I know i am. I have been watching my government NOT follow the Constitutin for years, this clinches the deal. Do we give up? or do we follow the declaration of independence?

    With Obama rejecting this information he is telling every day american citizens that they don’t mean crap in his world. We don’t matter. We never mattered.

    Sad that the greatest country in the world has come to this.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Ya'll check this out….something's not right with this situation. He gives a deadline of Thurs. for donations?
    Why if they just said that they've got this huge amount of $150 mil. in Sept.? My gut says something's wrong…really wrong. We're praying Mr. Berg! Keep fighting!

    Thank you Jeff for all you are doing@ –War Eagle & ROLL TIDE!

  20. Anonymous says:

    I can't help but wonder if THIS is the reason for Biden's plea for unity & understanding during the 6 mos following BO being elected – if elected….which, if true, would confirm, the DEMS are well aware of this situation.

  21. chris says:

    Off topic, but out of curiosity, why is there an Obama cafepress link for pro-Obama items on your site? Have you been hacked?

  22. msjkulig430 says:

    It appears that the FEC is hiding behind the fact that all they are responsible for is campaign financing. If this is true, why does the FEC have standards of conduct and why are there other statutes against conspiracy, false statements, fraud and deprivation of rights? The judge SHOULD NOT grant the FEC’s motion to dismiss if, indeed, another law, rule, code, statute, regulation was, in fact, violated, even if it was NOT mentioned in the original or amended complaint. The judge MUST consider all aspects of the law that may have been violated. A Plaintiff should not be penalized for not citing the appropriate law/rule/code/regulation that violated his/her rights. I believe that there is much case law on this issue. Maybe Mr. Berg or any of the other Plaintiff’s suing Obama and others in these lawsuits should consider the following:

    PART 7_STANDARDS OF CONDUCT–Table of Contents
    Subpart B_Conduct and Responsibilities of Employees or Commissioners
    Sec. 7.7 Prohibited conduct–General.
    A Commissioner or employee shall avoid any action whether or not
    specifically prohibited by this subpart which might result in, or create
    the appearance of:
    (a) Using public office for unlawful private gain;
    (b) Giving favorable or unfavorable treatment to any person or
    organization due to any partisan, political, or other consideration;
    (c) Impeding Government efficiency or economy;
    (d) Losing independence or impartiality;
    (e) Making a Government decision outside official channels; or
    (f) Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
    integrity of the Government.

    PART 7_STANDARDS OF CONDUCT–Table of Contents
    Subpart B_Conduct and Responsibilities of Employees or Commissioners
    Sec. 7.16 Miscellaneous statutory provisions.
    Each employee shall acquaint himself or herself with each statute
    that relates to his or her ethical and other conduct as an employee of
    the Commission and of the Government. In particular, the attention of
    employees is directed to the following statutory provisions:
    (a) Chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, relating to bribery,
    graft, and conflicts of interest, as appropriate to the employees
    (b) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1913 against lobbying with
    appropriated funds.
    (c) The prohibitions of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918 against
    disloyalty and striking.
    (d) The prohibition of 50 U.S.C. 784 against the employment of a
    member of a Communist organization.
    (e) The prohibitions against (1) the disclosure of classified
    information under 18 U.S.C. 798 and 50 U.S.C. 782 and (2) the disclosure
    of confidential business information under 18 U.S.C. 1905.
    (f) The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7352 relating to the habitual use of
    intoxicants to excess.
    (g) The prohibition of 31 U.S.C. 638a(c) against the misuse of a
    Government vehicle.
    (h) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1719 against the misuse of the
    franking privilege.
    (i) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1917 against the use of deceit in
    an examination or personnel action in connection with Government
    (j) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1001 against fraud or false
    statements in a Government matter.
    (k) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 2071 against mutilating or
    destroying a public record.
    (l) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 508 against counterfeiting and
    forging transportion requests.
    (m) The prohibitions against
    (1) Embezzlement of Government money or property under 18 U.S.C.
    (2) Failing to account for public money under 18 U.S.C. 643; and
    (3) Embezzlement of the money or property of another person in the
    possession of an employee by reason of his or her employment under 18
    U.S.C 654.
    (n) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 285 against unauthorized use of
    documents relating to claims from or by the Government.
    (o) The prohibitions against political activities in subchapter III
    of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, and 18 U.S.C 602, 603,
    607, and 608.
    (p) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 219 against an employee acting as
    the agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign Agents
    Registration Act.
    (q) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207 against certain activities of
    departing and former employees.
    (r) The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 208 against certain acts affecting
    a personal financial interest.

    Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
    matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
    judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
    device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
    to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
    or entry;
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
    proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations,
    writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
    magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
    legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to–
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
    matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel
    or employment practices, or support services, or a document required
    by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any
    office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
    authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
    the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
    Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104-292,
    Sec. 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459.)

    Click the link for MORE Laws that have been violated.

  23. msjkulig430 says:

    More Informaton On Our Founding Fathers in regards to Citizenship and “Natural Born” Citizens for Presidency!


  24. 10 Ninety-Six says:

    RE: Discovery Conference in compliance with FRCP 26(f)
    Can you clarify the argument that Phil’s request for discovery was improper?

    FRCP 26(d)(1) states “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Since a Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery re FRCP 26 (f) was not held, I fail to see why the defendants would have to answer the discovery request.

    A ‘Request for Admissions’ is part of the discovery process, which cannot proceed until after the Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery as FRCP 26(d)(1) asserts. FRCP Rule 26 Subdivision (f) provides for a special meeting between the parties to organize their discovery process; this is a required step. Formal Discovery cannot proceed until this conference has been concluded.

    I firmly feel the proper way to proceed would to be to file a petition for writ of mandamus with the Honorable Third Circuit Court or the Honorable SCOTUS if the feeling that the Third Circuit will not expeditious enough.

    This is not intended to undermine Philip Berg. This is to assist with guiding this case in the proper direction. As nice as it would be to have Senator Obama and the DNC forced into these decisions, I don’t think it’s viable.

    Jeff, can you confirm or counter this claim? Any comment on this from Berg? any speculation on your behalf?


    Below are some references:

    A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil case.

    A discovery procedure, authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court rules of many states, in which one party asks an opposing party to admit that certain facts are true.

    Definition of discovery:
    Definition: A formal procedure established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and corresponding state procedural rules in which parties to a lawsuit exchange information and documents in an effort to “discover” facts relevant to the lawsuit and identify potential witnesses and evidence.

    Discovery devices include depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production of documents and requests for inspection.

  25. dallasinsat says:

    For all of us ready to do our part, I recommend focus, energy and time be spent to put relentless pressure on US Senate Committee on Rules & Administration http://rules.senate.gov/purpose/. They are the ones that have the jurisdiction, authority and responsibility to resolve this issue and they need to get off of their butts and begin hearings. This needs to be number 1 issue for them. Berg filed amendment to his original complaint to add this committee and Diane Feinstein, Chairman. The online Congressional Petition “Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis” started by an obamacrimes user has total of 26K signers. Just think of pressure those 26K people could exert on Diane Feinstein and rest of US Senate Committee on Rules & Administration? To me, that is where the end game is going to eventually be decided and won.

  26. Anonymous says:

    For reference, the recent case against McCain in California:

    Link to Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al 2008

    “…Senator John McCain, this action alleges, is not a “natural-born citizen” within the
    meaning of Article II of the Constitution of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve
    as president. Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His parents were
    both United States citizens…”

  27. Tired of being called racist says:

    I have a stupid question regarding ‘standing’?

    If we look at this situation as a business, then, would it be fair to say that Sen. Obama, my putting forth his candidacy is like putting forward a prospectus????
    Therefore, would anyone who actually gave money to his campaign would have ‘standing’?

    I would think anyone who actually gave money to his campaign would have a monetary interest in getting him elected. If he is not qualified to hold the office, then, his acceptance of funds would be fraud.

    Just asking.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Just a very naive layman here, trying to understand and asking for some help:

    Just how IS the presidential qualification clause in our Constitution enforced?

  29. Anonymous says:

    Actally, Diane Feinstein heads the Dem’s committee in charge of verifying their candidate…would she be vulnerable to a civil suit? Or, would donors to the DNC or Obama campaign have standing if they claimed their money was accepted under fraudulant conditions?
    I would think sending a boat-load of postcards to the judge’s office would get the point across without intruding
    on the court’s phone lines.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Looks like , in MY OPINION,that the FEC is only asking on behalf of themselvs to have their name(part) of the suit dismissed . It does not have anything to do with the case as a whole. What am I missing that most of you seem to get?

  31. Anonymous says:


    What next?

    Who does have “oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause”? and what have they done, or not done, and why or why not?

    Who is looking out for America?

  32. Anonymous says:

    Greg Stay says:

    McCain won his suit based on lack of standing so why did you think this would be any different.

    You can pass this along to others, but there’s still no proof. Unless you’re still waiting for the Michelle tapes. Move on whitey.

    This has all been very entertaining and thank you Jeff for taking us all on a long ride.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong. This is just a filing to dismiss. Previsous filngs to dismiss were denied. This one in particutlar is from the FEC. The case is not over and is continuing. The judge has not made a ruling. The DNC and Obama filed ones earlier. You can find a complete list of filings and motions on other websights.

  34. Anonymous says:

    If I were Obama I wouldn’t give this issue any attention either. He’s obviously an American citizen born, raised, and educated. He works hard his whole life and then some jackass has the nerve to come along and question whether or not he’s even allowed to be in his home?
    Complete bull.

    Obama is NOT a natural-born U.S. citizen. Had he been, he would have proven it by now – instead of fighting these cases and calling on John McCain to prove his U.S. citizenship earlier this year.

    You Obamabrats are the BIGGEST hypocrites alive, I swear.

    Shut Obama DOWN Mr. Berg!!!

  35. Me says:

    Links to the latest filings are listed below. I mentioned the FEC and the two Berg filings yesterday, but the Bradley one I just saw this morning. She is one of the folks who joined the suit later.





    As of today, there are now a total of 24 filings in the Berg v. Obama suit. I know little about law, but that seems like a lot to me, especially over the two-month period since this suit was initialized.

  36. Me says:

    Thanks to anonymous at 8:01 10/21. I did some checking on the breakins this morning. For those who might be interested in U.S. passport documentation, here’s a link that might be of interest to you:


    Coincidence that Senator Obama’s passport records were accessed several times? Sure. Why not? If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Alaska that you might be interested in purchasing.

  37. Tom says:

    I know theres alot of trolling on the board but many of us are viewing this site as intensly as a news channel for constant updated info. Please consider disabling the comment moderation and approval, I would much rather be able to view the info as it comes in.

  38. Anonymous says:

    What break in today?

  39. Trent says:

    An answer to the lethargy in the decision process perhaps.

    For Immediate Release April 11, 2000

    The President today nominated Berle M. Schiller and R. Barclay
    Surrick to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

  40. Marie says:

    Dallasinsat said:

    "For all of us ready to do our part, I recommend focus, energy and time be spent to put relentless pressure on US Senate Committee on Rules & Administration"

    I sent a letter to Sen Bennett today. He is the ranking (Rep) member of that committee. In the interim, though, I have been rooting around on their website and have come to some conclusions.


    I don't see anything in their processes that requires them to verify the eligibility of a candidate other than the mention in their "Purpose and Jurisdiction" it says they are responsible for matters relating to corruption.

    Under the "Presentation of Credentials and Questions of Privilege" rules, they simply provide a form for the governor and SOS to sign verifying that this person was indeed duly elected by the electorate of that state. I don't see anywhere that they require documentation for newly elected Senators and no mention of Presidential elections at all.

    Under "Oaths" I see that each senator is required to take the oath swearing allegiance to the constitution (which obviously Sen Obama lied about)but there again is no mention of the presidency.

    I hate to say this but I am coming to the conclusion that our country has been laboring under the misconception that someone is minding the store where this is concerned but obviously it has been a case of everyone thinking someone else is responsible for it and, in fact, no one is doing it.

    For all we know, Obama and half the senators in the senate were born in the Soviet Union and we would never know as long as they were willing to lie about it.

    This is very troubling. If the legal system thinks no voter has "standing" to question this and no one in the Senate or the FBI or anywhere else is doing background checks, we are obviously wide open on this. For all we know, there is a little Manchurian Candidate cell over in Pakistan somewhere breeding future Presidents in preparation for the Third Jihad. And they would probably get away with it–with the help of the American media even!

  41. Anonymous says:

    Jeff said…
    “So no one can challenge The One….”

    The Republican Party, or at the very least, John McCain, should be the one to question the eligibility of Obama; and, probably, they’ll do it at the eleventh hour, so that, the Democratic Party wouldn’t have time to replace Obama, should he be disqualified.
    However, the DNC may have already prepared for this eventuality; and that is, DNC is ready for Biden to be THE ONE.

  42. Anonymous says:


  43. Anonymous says:

    Funny you mention Pakistan. According to Obama’s own books, the people who befriended him most during college years where Pakistani. Now that being said. How is it he wants to fire upon a secular government? Does he prefer the Islamic Republic Of Pakistan?

  44. Ann says:

    If, as suggested, one can gain standing to challenge Obama’s citizenship and consequent right to run for POTUS by contributing to his campaign, all who feel he should be required to produce proof of citizenship should contribute $1.00. It may be that only Obama contributors are eligible to file suit. How likely is that to happen if only his supporters have contributed to his campaign?

  45. Gary Baumgarten says:

    Philip Berg will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com Tuesday October 28 at 5 PM New York time.

    Please go to http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Show link to talk to him.


  46. Tired of being called racist says:

    Just a curious question.

    Let’s just for a moment say that Mr. Berg is right. I, myself, believe that he is and the strongest evidence that points to this conclusion is that Sen. Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, when he was an adult, to a country that did not admit any US citizens at that time.

    Anyway, what happens then? Besides the fact that Sen. Obama is striken from the ballot? What happens to all of the early voting ballots and absentee ballots already submitted in mail?

    1. Do these ballots become invalid?
    2. Do anyone on the ballot besides Sen. Obama get counted?
    3. Or does the whole ballot become invalid?
    4. Do those whose ballots are invalidated get a chance to re-cast a ballot?
    5. How would that work?

    As we get closer and closer to Nov. 4, the logistics of these procedures are daunting, to say the least.

    Just curious.

  47. Darcy Giehl says:

    It? s the 1st time I have heard that in Macedonia, obits are an unusual observe. You might have wonderfully written the publish. I have liked your way of writing this. Thanks for sharing this.

Speak Your Mind