Two Articles, Two Sides of Berg v. Obama


After two months, news of Philip Berg’s federal lawsuit is finally gaining traction. Pieces are popping up on local television stations from Florida to Alaska. The Internet buzz has reached more mainstream Web sites such as Newsmax and WorldNetDaily. Articles are popping up in big and small newspapers from coast to coast. Even Rush Limbaugh mentioned the case on his Thursday afternoon program, and Michael Savage did a surprising long interview with Berg later that evening.

“I was told that I would be doing a ten-minute segment,” Berg told me on the telephone this evening. “The next thing I knew, it had been almost an hour.”

Two recent articles in particular, however, caught my eye. The difference between them is stark, and could be a microcosm of the outcome of the case. The first one, for example, talks more about the evidence side of the action, about whether or not Barack Obama truly is eligible to be president of the United States; the second one talks more about the procedural angle, about whether or not Philip Berg has standing to sue.

In my opinion, the result of this action on the District Court level will depend upon whether the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick is more interested in the underlying eligibility questions, or in the satisfaction of the requirements necessary to raise them.

The first piece is by Kenneth Timmerman of Newsmax, the same reporter who, just a few days ago, wrote so well about the questionable $63 million in Barack Obama’s campaign coffers. He goes into detail about Obama’s birth certificate, even providing a link to the Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Illinois senator, and an official Certificate of Live Birth from a person born just two years later. Reproduction issues aside, one quite obviously provides more information than the other.

Timmerman also raises an interesting point by highlighting a segment from one of Obama’s memoirs in which he actually mentions the document:

Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote.

As much as I am a skeptic as to all of this business–I’ve said time and time again that I simply feel as though we are constitutionally obligated to ensure that our leaders are properly vetted–this, to me, presents a question as to why it was necessary for Obama to provide an obviously laser-printed, recent copy of his birth records in the first place. If he had his original, tucked in among articles and old vaccination forms, why not just provide that one?

The second article ran on a Web blog entitled The Daily Jot, a nicely-written resource with which I am just now becoming familiar. This one highlighted the argument made by attorneys for Barack Obama and the DNC that, indeed, voters have no constitutional right to challenge the eligibility of the presidential candidates.

While I don’t much like it, as the law stands right now the lawyers are technically right. Just as you or I could not have standing to sue the federal government simply because we are taxpayers, voters cannot sue simply because they are voters. Time and time again, on these pages, I’ve said that the standing doctrine weighs heavily against Philip Berg’s cause. Just a few days ago, in fact, I wrote that common sense dictates that the suit be tossed on grounds of lack of standing — though I specifically said that some unexplainable tremor in my gut told me that Judge Surrick could surprise us all and rewrite voter standing as we know it. Law texts, after all, wouldn’t be so thick if the law never changed.

That’s why these two articles caught my eye. On one hand, the nature of the evidence, albeit circumstantial, makes me wonder if we might just be surprised by Judge Surrick’s willingness to expand upon the standing doctrine and redefine injury a little bit. On the other hand, the law as it stands now says that Monday [hopefully, it's Monday and no later] will likely be a gloomy one for those interested in standing up for constitutional principles valued by our nation’s framers.

At the end of the day, it’s going to be one or the other — faith in the convincing nature of circumstantial evidence, or devotion to the procedure and the letter of the law.

Gut versus common sense. We’ll see.

EIther way, I’m back in town. Typically near a computer. Keep checking at America’s Right for updates.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    News from Philly this a.m. reports that Berg lawsuit is thrown out. Say it ain’t so that our laws allow anyone, regardless of background, to become president.

    http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html

  2. John Galt says:

    Jeff:

    While interesting Judge Surrick will not want to start civil unrest and possibly even terrorist attacks on America by finding for Berg.

    Just like Greenspan came out with his baloney about the failed market because he didn’t want to sleep on the couch and Bernanke endorsed Obama becausse he wants to keep his job after Jan 2009 Surrick will not want to risk major civil unrest by finding in faovr of Berg.

    A recent poll was taken in France on who the French favor in this election.

    McCain got a resounding 1% yes 1% and Obama got most of the other 99%.

    The whole world wants Obama especially the Muslim world.

    There is no way that Surrick finds for Berg in such a way that would cause Obama to lose the election or later on be tossed if he wins on Nov 4th.

  3. Are We Asking THAT Much? says:

    How interesting that Obama and the DNC tried to make the case go away with an argument that basically tries to use “the very strict letter of the law” on who is eligible to bring a claim…..and it might be their disrespect for “the very strict letter of the law” in the requirements of how and when they were required to respond to the court that ultimately leads to the case getting significantly more attention immediately before election day…if not the case getting an actual hearing.

    Let’s hope the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick puts ample weight on the risk to the respect for our Constitution. We’re not asking for much from Obama. I had to prove my citizenship and eligibility to work in the United States when I started my job. Why on earth would the President of the United States not be held accountable to this same standard?

    We shall see.

    Here come ‘da judge…..!

  4. Lazman says:
  5. Anonymous says:

    Jeff

    did the judge come down against us late last night. Justia has noting. Maybe Pacer has something.

    Justia http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

    Philly news claims we lost.
    http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html?text=xlg&c=y

    here is the start of the article. Looks super serious.

    By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
    Philadelphia Daily News

    hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656

    A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.

    I am hoping the Philly story is false. I need you as the only person who can let us all know the truth.

    Thanks

  6. Anonymous says:

    I’m astounded at the thought that American’s cannot require that Presidential candidate produce their certified birth certificate in order to prove they are eligible to be President of the US!

    Why do the Patriot Laws, which require just that, in order to obtain something as insignificant as a replacement social security card so that my grandson could get his working papers! His last name had been changed so it matched his mother and step father’s when she remarried when he was 7! We had his original birth certificate and the legal documents for his name change and STILL had to get the certified copy from the Courthouse! He wasn’t even running for President!!!

    I don’t see why the same Law wouldn’t pertain to a potential President candidate, especially when we have had experience with enemy “sleepers” in this country with 9/11. It should not be so easy for a complete unknown, like Obama, to just walk unencumbered into the Whitehouse in these days of grave danger to our people and our country!

    Who is HE that we should not DARE to ask him for proof that he’s eligible to be president, especially when there’s so much evidence that he most likely is NOT eligible! I don’t see why he would not be subject to the requirements of Patriot Laws just like my grandson was. Cough up the certified birth certificate or as far as we are concerned, you aren’t able to because you AREN’T a US citizen and have no business in the Presidency, US Senate or the State Senate and have perpetrated a fraud on the people of this country and the State of Illinois!

    Judge Surrick should immediately rule on this in Phillip Berg’s favor and Order Obama and DNC to produce the certified copy of his birth certificate and answer his questions. If he doesn’t and we find out after the GE and God forbid, he wins, it will be even worse and the Judge will be responsible. He can prevent a crisis in this country and an assault on the Constitution by just ruling that Obama has to produce what McCain was asked for and produced immediately!

  7. Anonymous says:

    Dave Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    October 25, 2008 at 1:47 pm
    JUDGE TOSSES OUT PHIL BERG LAWSUIT…”LACK OF STANDING”

    http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/10/bergs-lawsuit-tossed-by-judge-for-lack.html

  8. Anonymous says:

    Is this reference (http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/nobc/) calling out that the judge has denied Berg’s suit true ???

    Please say that it’s not !!!

  9. SteveT in WA says:

    Again Jeff, I greatly admire and appreciate your diligence on this issue, thank you for providing such insight. Perhaps you can help with a follow up question; if a voter can’t challenge an election issue like this, who does have standing? Also, how would this relate to the case in Washington State, where the Secretary of State is being sued, not the candidate?

  10. hokiedokie24 says:

    Jeff, someone posted that a Philly paper said the judge dismissed the case against Obama, is this true??

  11. pj says:
  12. Anonymous says:

    FYI there is breaking news at http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html

    “Judge rejects Montco lawyer’s bid to have Obama removed from ballot
    By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
    Philadelphia Daily News

    hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656

    A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.”

    The story goes on to say that the suit has been rejected because of lack of standing.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I have been unable to locate The Daily Jot article. The links don’t take me to anything.

  14. Anonymous says:
  15. Thomas says:
  16. Anonymous says:

    I feel like throwing up. This makes me sad Jeff.

    I guess my next question is…who has the right to find out if he qualified?
    There must be a system of checks and balances. Are you saying that nobody has the right to make sure our constitutional qualifications for our nation’s highest office are being upheld?

    If this was the case, then Obama knew it and was laughing the whole time.

    Before the judge dismisses this he should make sure there is some protocal in place to check his qualifications. If there is not, he needs to man-up and make a command decision in the country’s best interest instead of protecting his own bacon. If he doesn’t he is a traitor to the constitution.

    Thanks for your work Jeff!

    T. Jones

  17. Anonymous says:
  18. Anonymous says:
  19. Papa Ray says:

    The Judge dismissed the lawsuit yesterday (friday).

    [URL="http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html"

    What now…??

    Papa Ray

  20. Ian Thorpe says:

    Jeff,
    From the perspective of 3000 miles I can understand why ordinary voters are not allowed to challenge candidates, it would be chaos for the courts to have to examine all the lawsuits filed by nutters claiming a candidate was inelegible because he was born a Klingon. However I still find it amazing that a lawyer would not hasve the necessary legal standing. Lawyers are reluctant to bring frivolous cases as pissing off Judges and Court Officers would in no way help their careeer.

    I’m also very puzzled at how quiet and restrained The Rebublicans have been.

    It reminds me of something HM The Queen said after the death of Princess Diana; “There are forces at work in this country of which we know nothing.” Hmmmmm?

  21. Berg is a fake says:

    berg lawsuit is over….. all this stuff from all these sites and berg and everyone is BS… dont waste your weekend reeading this stuff unless you ahve nothing better to do

    Berg Ruling link:
    http://snipurl.com/4or1r

  22. Anonymous says:

    The simple fact that he is not providing the B.C. should be a glaring sign of what type of President he would be. Secretive, legalistic and elitist. The MSM cried daily how the Bush White House was the most secretive, out of touch in history. Obama has already proven how he will govern. God help us all.

  23. Are We Asking For THAT Much? says:

    The Philadelphia Daily News reported last night that Judge Surrick threw the case out in a 34-page memorandum.

    Is this true?

    If yes, what is Berg’s next step (if any)?

    http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html

  24. Anonymous says:

    argument made by attorneys for Barack Obama and the DNC that, indeed, voters have no constitutional right to challenge the eligibility of the presidential candidates

    Then who has the right??? If no one has the right, some entity certainly has the responsibility to confirm eligibility. Federal and state employees all across our nation right now have to verify who they are with 2 forms of ID for HSPD-12. Other voters and groups frequently sue over various elements of the constitution and seem to get there day (religion, speech, etc.)

  25. marinamama says:

    I am so disappointed over this but looking at the whole picture, I wonder if this isn’t the best solution. Can you imagine the riots if we were able to have his name removed from the ballot. We would have deprived his followers of allowing their ‘the one’ to not even be voted on. If we can post everywhere and email everyone we know that McCain is by far the best answer, and if he wins by votes, there will probably not be as many riots/civil disturbances.

    One side of me definitely wants his name off the ballot but I shudder to think what will result if that happens. At least if McCain wins fairly and Obama’s name is on the ballot, I think there is less chance of riots/civil disturbances.

    Just my humble opinion!

  26. Anonymous says:

    It is time for the people of this country to invade Washington, DC and take back the rights allowed them in the Constitution, even if this has to be done by force. It is evident that most of the Democrat party and some of the Republican party have become Communist and need to be either eliminated or replaced, with what ever means necessary, even a revolution.

  27. Anonymous says:

    This isn’t the first time that Obama has challenged the “Letter of the Constitution” – and won.

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/328968

    The man obviously understands how to drive between the lines to get what he wants. What ever happened to the “Spirit of the Law”? I guess that’s what appeals and the SCOTUS is for.

    I’m disgusted at the current situation of events. For almost 30 years I’ve had to submit extremely detailed information to Federal authorities to maintain security clearances for PRIVILEGE to perform my job. The litany of things in Obama’s past would have disqualified me on my first application with little to no recourse for appeal.

    I suspect that Obama sees all these “technicalities” as minor annoyances to his RIGHT to be POTUS.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Don’t people read the comments before they post?

    We now know that almost all of the legal system is corrupt and the press is corrupt. We know the only way that Obama can bring people together is through fear of this corruption and its ramifications. We know Obama supporters are emotionally charged rather than logical. We know the country is moving toward a totalitarian system.

    Our response should be to learn how people survived under communism in the Former Soviet Union. We need to learn from them what they did to keep themselves and their families safe in a corrupt system.

    I think the first lesson is the same sane Chicagoans have learned. If you have any morals, do not have anything to do with the government. Do not go along with it. Do not fight it. Ignore it the best you can.

    The political end of the New Age movement is now a huge steamroller and not enough people have cared enough to know what was going on and to fight it’s development. Go to http://cumbey.blogspot.com/ to see what is happening behind the scenes. Constance Cumbey is a Detroit lawyer.

  29. Anonymous says:

    So the sacred Constitution is worth no more than toilet paper to the judge.

    Oh well, I then have to flip to the other side – if Obama is elected then we will know that the Lord who has watched over America from inception is now acknowledging that the US has turned its back on Him too many times and now He is removing His hand of favor from us.

    Hopefully it won’t be long now until the rapture.

  30. Greg Goss says:

    So it seems that in order to comply with Article II one must be honorable enough to just know that one complies. That is to say there is no enforcement clause therefore only the honor system is in place.

    Only the honorable judge did not do the honorable thing. If BHO is sworn in then he is in violation of the constitution and should become the second president to be impeached.

  31. Anonymous says:

    The ruling is no surprise. The state court suits have a better chance of success. If suits are filed in all 50 states, all it takes is success in one state. (I am a California attorney.)

  32. Terrenz Sword says:

    The REAL reason that this lawsuit has been dismissed is that it has now come out, through the British press, that Barak Obama is the candidate’s ADOPTED father! His birth was illegitimate, and the wedding to Obama was an arraigned one. His real father is Frank Marshall Davis, Black Communist author, formerly of Chicago, who spent his last years in Hawaii. He became friends with Stanley Anne’s father, and had sex with her from the age of 14, as he wrote in a adult novel he published! Davis was The young Barry Soetero’s mentor, and who no doubt paid for his education, and was named only “Frank” in Obama’s book, “Memories of my Father” which was really about Mr. Davis, not Barak Obama, whom Barry never knew! So he WAS born in Hawaii, and was adopted TWICE. Still unclear is the Indonesian question, and his travels to Pakistan…a nuclear country he and Biden now want to invade!

  33. Anonymous says:

    I would like to know why the judge took 2 months to rule against Mr. Berg. He knew what his decision would be from the beginning. It’s evident the judge is on the Obama side.

    If Obama and the DNC could do this now, imagine when he is in the oval office.

  34. Anonymous says:

    in 1949 I was in first grade and my teacher said that America would move to Totalitarianism like Russia and that Russia would move toward a Democracy like America. All the students protested NEVER WOULD AMERICA MOVE TOWARD COMMUNISM. the teacher said we would. She said the people will demand a stronger government step by step until we were a totalitarian gov like USSR at the time.

    I remember saying well maybe in 500 years but the teacher insisted it would happen much quicker.

    I ask all loyal Americans are you ready now to become Marxist Communist or do you want to hold off the tide and demand we stay a free country for a longer time.

    I am ready to fight for freedom although I am 65 years old today. But I now know what it means to be willing to die for my country.

    “It is a good day to die.” was the battle cry of the American Indians as they fought the white settlers taking over their land. I now agree.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone e mailed this judge yet

  36. Anonymous says:

    Since liberals seem to be more concerned about the life of a polar bear than the life of a viable fetus, can somebody PLEASE find a picture of Obama shooting a polar bear. Even the MSM can’t ignore that.

    Sorry. I know this is no time to joke but I have to somehow find some humor or I will go crazy. It’s only the end of the world as we know it.

  37. Anonymous says:

    It seems the only people with more power than the judicial system is the MSM.

    They have the power to report this and insist he show it. They have the power to sway public opinion.

    If this were McCain or Palin and they refused to show ANYTHING, they would report it, criticize it, and demand it. If not the consequences would be the daily attacks against them and the campaign wouldn’t even be a contest.

    Sean Hannity is right. Journalism has died.

    Obama proganda is born.

    Example. When asked about Ayers, ACORN, Rezko, etc. the answer is always ‘people don’t care about that, they care about the economy.’ How many times have you heard that? I am sick and tired of being told what I want to know. How dare they speak for me! I do want them to answer questions about this. How do I know Journalism has died? Because for three days all they want to talk about is Palin’s wardrobe.

    Can someone please tell me how much Obama has spent on his suits? I thought I read somewhere that is is over a million dollars. If there were any true journalists in the MSM, this would be included with the story on Palin.

  38. deadenders says:

    Jeff that image of the 63 CLOB is just as fake as Obama’s. Hawaii didn’t use that background image back then (No color). Look at the lines on the 63 CLOB the curve in the bottom left had side as if the doc was scanned out of a book. But the backgound image stays straight. PHOTOSHOP and not very good.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Here is another of Obama terminological inexactitude ( to use Churchillian phrase!).

    When the news of his aunt’s illegal stay in country, living on welfare came out, he claimed he did not know anything about it. He is not being exactly honest about this matter.

    His aunt did not sneak across the Mexican border. She came in on a valid tourist visa and just did not return to Kenya. For a Kenyan to get a US tourist visa, someone in the US should sponsor her. The sponsorship requires that the sponsor is responsible for ALL THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE TOURIST and is also responsible to ensure that the tourist returns to her native country BEFORE THE TOURIST VISA expires !!

    Obama sponsored his aunt for a tourist visa twice, once in 1999 and again in 2004. Obviously she returned to Kenya after the first visit. In 2004 when she came on a sponsored tourist visa, she decided to stay back by applying for refugee status. The Immigration judge denied her plea. So it should have been Obama’s responsibility per the sponsorship rules to pay for all her expenses while in the US and ensure that she returns back to Kenya.

    How can he now claim that he had no idea she was still in this country?

    I know these rules because I have personal experience.

Speak Your Mind

*