Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.

Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

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

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where “an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”

In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

“While the procedural evasions may be proper,” Berg said, “it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we’ve requested.”

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative–and about the Democratic Party nominee for president–with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

“The tape is in the native language there,” Berg said. “I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya.”

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick’s decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg said. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

For a full-text copy of the order and memorandum, click HERE.



  1. BlueWater1949 says:

    This is who probably forged OBama’s Cert of Live Birth

  2. Anonymous says:

    This is extremely important. Study what this guy says about the judge’s ruling and notice the time stamps on the fax. It will definitely make you ask the same questions that he’s asking.

  3. BlueWater1949 says:

    This is who forged Obama’s Cert of Live Birth (a privilege he wouldn’t give other some other children).

  4. angel says:


    - NOT born in America!

    - NOT a Christian!

    - NOT a Democrat!

    He will USHER in SOCIALISM, rendering America over to COMMUNISM, rolling out the red carpet for NAZI FASCIM and MARTIAL LAW – MARK MY WORDS!

    Muslims and Blacks LOVE him.
    - Haters and Haters.

    Ok, ok, so not ALL of them are haters; I know, I know… but when it comes to THIS RACE, YES… YES, they ARE!

    Judgie-Boy, for sure, got 7 figures for THAT BOGUS RULING! Without a DOUBT IN MY MIND!

    Obama is a SEETHING LIAR! VERY SHREWD with an underground network.

    TERRORISTS BACK HIM, as state-sponsored terrorism is being effected all over America, with the media, being the 4th arm of this shadow 'government', giving obama a pass on ALL HIS SHENANIGANS:

    his GAY-ness
    his muslim-ship
    his perpetuating voter fraud
    his not being born in America
    his refusal to show his record(s)
    his lying antics
    his nonsensical policies

    and the list goes on and on…




    It's ALL BULLSHIT!!!


    Go, Pastor Manning!
    Get the Truth Out, My Dear Sir!
    You will be Sanctified, in so doing, I have no doubt!

    With Best Wishes & All of God's Blessings to My Fellow Americans!

    Angelina Lazar
    Defender of Human Rights
    ~ Your Canadian Neighbour

    P.S. And YES, I have EVERY RIGHT to speak my mind, as we NO LONGER have BORDERS between us with a coming North American Union – God Almighty Forbid THAT, TOO, as MUCH AS an obama-presidency!

    3rd time I'm trying to post now.. let's see if it goes through THIS time.

    But In Jesus' Name
    All the Same!


    - and there are NO "SMEAR" tactics against him!

    It is called: "THE TRUTH" !!!

    Lord God, Almighty,
    Enlighten those Americans
    to give their heads a good shake,
    peel off the CRUST CAKED ON their eyes,
    and debug their programmed, hypnotized minds
    to See the Light
    before it's too late!

    In Jesus' Name,
    Amen +

  5. toto says:

    Why can’t we file a FOIA against his college to open the files? IF he received a college grant as a foregn student, than he’s either committed fraud by receiving it, OR he’s committing fraud now by running for president. He can’t be foreign in one circumstance, and a citizen in another.

  6. marie says:

    Did you guys notice the fax stamp at the bottom of Judge Surrick’s ruling? Looks like he may have “received” his ruling from elsewhere. See

  7. Anonymous says:

    I find the reports of the time stamps on the judge’s fax, his connections to MO’s former law firm, and the filings removal from the Justia site very disturbing. I know all of your readers would like to see your analysis on your front page later this week.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Is this an active blog?

  9. Anonymous says:

    I would like to pose a question or two to the McCain supporters here:

    If McCain and the Republican party have not pursued this issue, why? Why has McCain publicly corrected his own supporters at rallies when they say he’s not an American?

    From these actions I can only conclude two things. Either McCain knows he’s a citizen and doesn’t care about the “conspiracy”(which should be a big hint to you guys) or he’s such a spineless coward for not even fighting a political opponent that he isn’t worthy of contending with the leaders of other countries at a time like this. Honestly though, if McCain won’t fight someone who is supposedly threatening the rights of the people and making a mockery of the government (especially when he’s LOSING the election to this person) what do you think he’s going to do for our rights if he were somehow elected president?

    My two cents…..

  10. Anonymous says:

    No records that Obama was born at Queens Hospital, Hawaii???

    Maybe this info would be useful somehow?

    I found the following comment under VIDEO "October Surprise" on
    YOuTube: doglover93456 (that message was sent on 10/24/08 at 10:22pm)

    "Sorry,You are WRONG. I live on Oahu and the local TV station here
    "KGMB" has done a lot of digging at (Queens Hospital)and the Dir. has said on record that they have "NO record" of a birth of Obama on the date,time and year in question. "

    The member's site:

    The link to all comments:

    Marking time on YouTube is very strange. But I determined
    the time of that message, and you (or anybody) can find it (spending
    some time for that). Also you have User Name of that member
    (doglover93456) and local TV station "KGMB".

    Maybe this is worth to check it out?

    The easy (but not so easy) way to go to the message by doglover93456

    Click on the link that I gave:

    At the top of the page you'll see:
    All Comments (20,134 total – /at the time 10/26/08 11:30am/)

    Go to the bottom of the page.
    You see: Pages: 1 2 3 …

    Go to Page 36 (alas, it'll take time).

    Go to Edit, Find (on this Page). Type into the window: doglover.
    You'll find the message(s) by doglover93456 on Page 36.

    I believe there is a sense to contact to doglover93456 and local
    TV station "KGMB" in order to check facts submitted by doglover93456.

  11. Brenda says:

    I just checked the obamacrimes website and Phil Berg has filed with the supreme court…
    under amendment 10 we the people have the right to decide what is not specifically mentioned in the constitution…
    I will gladly add my name to the become we the people

    and the injury to the people would be the breakdown of the foundation of our country…the constitution…written by and for we the people.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Judge Surrick is a mental midget! His claim that Philip Berg’s lawsuit lacked standing is LUDICROUS!

    US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.

    No where in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 do I see the words “Only Congress shall have the authority to challenge the eligibility of a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States.

    And no where in Article I of the US Constitution (the powers and authority of Congress – House and Senate) do I see the words “Only Congress shall have the authority to challenge the eligibility of a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States.

    In Fact, under Articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights, because “the authority to challenge the eligibility of a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States” is a “power NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution”, it most certainly is therefore “reserved… to the people”; and a Right that must not “be denied” as it is “retained by the people”.

    (Article 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”)

    (Article 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”).

  13. msjkulig430 says:

    Read blog article:

    The Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

    A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.

    Could the decision be linked to the Obama campaign and lawyers in Chicago? The time in Chicago is an hour behind Pennsylvania, and taking into account the slight few minutes that two fax machines may be off in their time settings, it could be concluded that at 4:55p CT, a law firm in Chicago began faxing the memorandum of the Judge’s decision to the JUDGE, and then his office began faxing it out immediately.

    This article raises some interesting questions

  14. Anonymous says:

    Jeff; Perhaps you could provide updates on other lawsuits which might have some possibility of success along with some input from some of the legal scholars at your school on some of these issues.

  15. Anonymous says:

    “If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

    The above is absurd. If this means what I think it does, than everything in the Constitution unenforceable until Congress determines who as standing to make a challenge. What use is the constitution?

  16. Anonymous says:

    I am surprised that voters don’t have standing. Who stands to be injured in a democracy more than the people?

    Having said that, I want to respond to one of your questions, Jeff. You ask why Obama didn’t supply the birth certificate that had been sitting around all those years, the one mentioned in his book “Dreams of My Father.” I think it is likely that the birth certificate copy he had so many years ago was not a certified copy. I have had a birth certificate in my important papers for many years. But it did not suffice for times when I have needed a certified copy. Furthermore, the certified copy of my birth certificate is very similar to Obama’s, with equally little information.

    As to the idea that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake because someone else’s birth certificate two years later is different, did Illinois change their forms? Has anyone checked that?

    I also find it interesting that you seem rather dismissive of Judge Surrick’s comments about the speculative nature of the evidence presented by Berg.

  17. 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!!!

  18. Anonymous says:

    There are a lot of interesting and heart-felt comments on this blog, but I’d urge that each and every one of you focus…

    The Berg v Obama lawsuit IS NOT what this issue is about. The issue IS the production of an original Certificate of Birth (COB) by a presidential candidate.

    Focusing on Berg is a tremendous disservice in the quest for the real truth. Berg is a skilled and qualified individual, but if you examine Berg’s involvements in these matters, you’ll see that Berg is (or has been) involved in the following:

    • A failed Federal lawsuit against Obama that according to the judge lacked sufficient evidence.
    • A non-released audio tape of Mrs. Obama with the API, uttering questionable statements. (Which, by-the-way, I don’t believe ever happened, nor does the tape exist).
    • A yet to be released recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother stating that she was in the delivery room when Obama was born. (I don’t know how much that can prove one way or another, because is not supported by evidence – it’s just a statement from a proud grandmother).

    If you examine the evidence behind all these claims, it begins to look a lot like “tin-foil hat time”…Clearly, Berg has some challenges in making a credible argument based on real tangible and verifiable evidence, (which we have not yet seen, and which we don’t know if he has or does not have). Nonetheless, Berg IS NOT the issue…!!!

    From my understanding, there are 7 additional lawsuits at the state level. — Focus on those!!! — It’s hard for me to believe that there isn’t a legal way to challenge the Secretary of State in each state, to verify the COB for authenticity AND make those SOSs legally accountable (and liable) for that verification. I also can’t believe that if this is such a legitimate matter, why hasn’t the Republican Party pursuing this more adamantly.

    Also, it’s equally hard for me to believe that BO has the only set of copies of his school records, his thesis, his financial aid records, etc, which he refuses to produce for review. Someone out there must have a copy of these items. The question is, can those be obtained legally and verified to be true copies?

    I’m afraid that absent proof, this will go by the wayside and become an urban myth.

    On a closing note, I hear everyone saying that the MSM is not covering this…heck, neither is the conservative media!! Why aren’t Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, etc also “feverishly” covering this? – Unless you find credible, verifiable evidence, no one in the media will touch this! Unless someone finds a way to legally address this matter or finds legitimate proof to challenge this issue…its will eventually sputter away go by the wayside and with less two weeks left…if you do have that “earth moving proof” – don’t sit on it and lets see the facts!!!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Re: The question about MR. OBAMA’S PLACE OF BIRTH.

    While I agree that based on what we do know, or don’t know, it sure looks as though he may not eligible to run for president, it will be a cold day in Hades before anyone in power would allow him to be disqualified for being ineligible, before or after the election.

    The threat of riots, revolution, and civil unrest will keep this issue at bay for the foreseeable future, and entitlement wins out again. So much for the peace loving and tolerant crowd on the left side of the aisle.

    If Obama’s not eligible, and they let him take office anyway, would he be our first affirmative action President?

  20. Anonymous says:

    To gain standing, shouldn’t Berg or anyone else who wants to pursue this just write his their name in on a ballot to become a candidate? At that point, as a candidate they should have standing to show there are tangible damages, right?

    Is there a reason under law that people should not be doing this?

  21. Anonymous says:

    I’m sick of being called racist too. Honestly they are falsely accusing me of something that I am not.

    BTW, those who accuse everyone as racist, I’m just for one race–and that’s the human race!

  22. Anonymous says:

    Did the judge have his opinion faxed to him to sign?

    I have read this.

  23. vrajavala says:

    According to some observers who noted that there is a time stamp at the very end indicating that the document was faxed into Surrick’s office from possibly sidney austin’s office. The former clerk for surrick is Christopher Seaman who now works at Sidney austin, where Obama met Michelle.

  24. bob says:

    Surrick copped out bc. he’s an obamatard socialist!

  25. Anonymous says:

    This is the same ploy used with legal challenges to the validity of the IRS. The courts say it is a matter for congress to decide (as there is no law requiring US citizens to pay taxes, so not court decision) and the congress says it is a matter for the courts.

    And no, there is not constitution left in this country. That was gone when Padilla, a US citizen, was held for two years without charges. If there is no right of habeus corpus, and no right to petition the government, then there is no constitution.

    Most people will never know it because they are too insignificant in the scheme of things to get the attention of those in power.

  26. desmo01 says:

    I want to thank the individuals who started the process for states to bring a lawsuit against Obama to produce a vault copy of his Birth Cert and prove he is a natural born citizen and prove he is constitutionally eligible to be president.

    I have written to the CT contact and have lent my name to the lawsuit. I urge anyone from the 7 states below, and I believe 3 more are now involved, to do the same. If I come across the other 3 I’ll repost.

    In my email to Cort, I also CC’d the Secretary of State, Govenor, and Attorney General of CT and contacted Sen Dodd, Sen Leiberman and Rep Larson.

    (HI) Andy Martin at email:
    (WA) Steve Marquis email: ; website:
    (CA) David Archbold email
    GA) Tom Terry email:
    PA) Philip Berg email: ; website:
    (NY) Dan Smith email:
    CT) Cort Wrotnowski email:

    Being born an American is the best thing that has happened to me and I refuse to let my constitutional rights slowly erode. Bush did a number on it and Obama will destroy it completely–both think they are above the law and we can’t let them by continue to think that way by remaining silent.

  27. Anonymous says:

    A Constitution without teeth is “no Constitution”. What you have in the US is a form of anarchy where the elite control the courts.

  28. Anonymous says:

    1. For those linking the purported tape interview w/Obama’s grandmother saying he was born in Kenya w/Obama’s visit to Hawaii, please note: most of us, including Obama, have 2 grandmothers. The visit was to his maternal grandmother while the purported tape is of his paternal grandmother. No conspiracy.
    2. See http://www.Snopes.Com about legal discussion for whether McCain is Natural-born citizen. He was not born in the U.S.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Well … I was the “genius” the blog author referred to last week ..the guy who said Berg has ZERO chance of prevailing.

    I’m willing to take bets that Rule 11 sanctions are coming … any takers?

  30. Anonymous says:

    We all wonder how much Obama has paid Judge Surrick to chicken out and dismiss Mr. Berg's lawsuit against Mr. Obama.

    We understand that supposedly a copy of Mr. Obama's birth certificate has been examined by But according to the following article, the Hawaii Department of Health has received no such request to release Mr. Obama's original birth certificate from Mr. Obama or from anyone acting legally on his behalf, such as his spouse or parent, one of his descendants, a person having a common ancestor with him, his legal guardian, or a person or agency acting on behalf of him:

    It states at the above webpage:

    "The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf."

    The above article goes on to state:

    "In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya."

    The above article also states:

    "In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

    The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a State of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generate by the hospital where Obama was born.

    'Fight the Smears' declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. "

    Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the 'Fight the Smears' website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess."

    Back to me. Therefore one can conclude that has NOT seen Mr. Obama's original birth certificate! And 'Fight The Smears' hasn't either!

    Since Berg's lawsuit has been dismissed, it will now go to the Supreme Court. But that's OK because that will give this concern even MORE MEDIA EXPOSURE. This will cause huge numbers of American citizens to hear about this and wonder why Mr. Obama doesn't simply show his official government issued birth certificate? The only logical conclusion can be that he does not have a birth certificate that shows he is an American citizen.

    I guess we will find out from the government of Kenya if Mr. Obama has a birth certificate on record there, but we will have to wait until after the election according the above article.

    If it turns out there is an official birth certificate in Kenya and Mr. Obama has been elected President, I wonder what turmoil this will cause? There will have to be a 2nd election, which has never happened in American history! Perhaps this is exactly what the media wants so as to generate a lot of interest in their news reports? I hope not!

    The media should concentrate on this matter to make sure that Mr. Obama is truly an American citizen instead of ignoring the question and allowing a potential catastrophe to occur. It will cause great turmoil and embarassment worldwide to the American public if we are forced to have a 2nd election! Not to mention the ENORMOUS WASTE of money (over $600 Million in Mr. Obama's case).

  31. Anonymous says:

    This section of the memo seems to me to show that this judge is NOT an “activist” judge like most GOP folks oppose …

    “So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.”

    ” If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

    he didn’t expand the law, he followed it.

    well done.

  32. Bob G. says:

    Does anyone find this amusing?

    I guess it’s clear that whomever opened this lawsuit, probably aka McCain, is trying to make it all better for the poor republicans who already know they are gonna lose the election.

  33. Greg Goss says:

    I jsut sent the following to the SOS of Georgia, I do doubt that she will act, but I can’t sit here and let things just happen.

    Ms. Handel,

    The Georgian secretary of state has unique duties and great latitude for the exercise thereof. I am obviously speaking about Sen. Barak Obama’s refusal to produce a valid birth certificate and after returning to Hawaii last week, the Governor of Hawaii has had it sealed. I bring to your attention Georgia law and offer you options that follow.

    O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5

    Copyright 2008 by The State of Georgia
    All rights reserved.

    *** Current through the 2008 Regular Session ***


    O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2008)

    § 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications

    (a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

    (b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.

    (c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.

    So I write to you and ask that you act in t he best interest of not only Georgia but our country as a whole. The way I see it we have two choices here. Neither one is going to be easy but one is far worse to leave without action than the other.

    Choice number one. Ask presidential candidate Sen. Barak Obama to prove he is in fact eligible to hold the office of POTUS under Article II of the constitution of the US or you will have no choice but to remove his name from the ballot under Georgia law, listed above. Surely there will be outcry.

    Choice number two. Do nothing and if Sen Barak Obama is in fact elected in the general election he will fail to qualify for the office of POTUS before the Electoral College. If this is allowed to happen then the public unrest is sure to lead to riots, death and destruction both here in the US and in other countries.

  34. Greg Goss says:

    Update to my previous comment on asking the SOS in Georgia to remove his name. That SOS replied to me with the following.

    In brief:

    Recently, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Mr. Obama is not qualified to
    run for President and should not appear on Georgia’s ballot. See Terry v.
    Handel, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Civil
    Action File No. 2008CV158774. On October 24, 2008, the Court entered an
    Order recognizing that in Georgia, as elsewhere in the United States, voters
    cast their ballots for “presidential electors,” rather than directly for a
    candidate, when voting for the office of President of the United States.
    See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3; O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. Because of
    this, the Secretary of State of Georgia does not have the authority to
    refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President of the
    United States when such individual has been properly nominated by a
    political party. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-172 to 21-2-200. Rather, Georgia law
    imposes duties simply for the examination of presidential electors.

  35. Greg Goss says:


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


    Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

    Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act

    § 19. (a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

    It appears that the Senate duly charged to perform the duties of their respective offices would have to find BHO eligible or not for the office of the POTUS.

    It seems to me that if Obama wins he shoud be deemed ineligible and then Biden would have enough electoral votes to be Vice President and therefore under the code above would be POTUS and his first action would be to nominate a VP.

  36. Anonymous says:

    any update as to the status of the appeal? are they going to review the case?

  37. I Worby says:

    I am an Australian, but have been following this for some weeks, I may be confused but surely any Citizen has a right to “Stand” with this challenge to the candidate eligibility to serve as President, did we learn in school that Democracy is “by the people for the people”?

    Is there not a clear call for a class action suite on behalf of all the people who have be defrauded and possibly voted or given monies in good faith to candidate that is unable or unwilling to prove his bona-fides to qualify for candidacy to run for office?
    You have a candidate who cannot or willnot take the pledge of Allegiance and has adopted a non American seal that possibly aligns itself with a non American set of values.

    This is a travesty of injustice of unimaginable consequences should this continue to go unchecked.

  38. Terry says:

    What’s the hold up on the Michelle Obama tapes, the Supreme Court appeal, and the granny tape?

  39. Anonymous says:

    To the person who asked if there is any chance that Obama’s African grandma’s statement would hold up, the answer is a resounding “NO”. If I wanted to scare a 90 year old woman into saying what I wanted, how hard would it be to have a translator tell her that unless she says her grandson was born in Kenya, he faces certain death by assassination, she would probably say anything. Without an actual copy of a Kenyan birth certificate, there is ZERO CHANCE of grandma’s testimony being accepted as credible.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Well, It is a sad day when the Constitution is legally explained away. AGAIN. Just look what we the people have done. An abortion is not murder but shooting a pregnant woman you are charged with a double murder. Think about it. We have become so so good at explaining,redefining,and interpretting. Right from wrong is gray. We have destroyed the Constitution of These United States.
    For once I would like to see someone face the music…call a spad a spad….abolish politically correctness….do what is right for America even though it hurts….stand up for the American way of life and the CONSTITUTION THAT IS ITS’ FOUNDATION…….SO WITH THAT SAID..

    MR. OBAMA provide the information required by the Constitution of These United States with reguards to your Citzenship NOW. AND BY GOD WILL A JUDGE OUT THERE GROWUP DO YOUR JOB AND FORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO BE INFORCED. DO YOUR JOB!!! Call for the documents it is of National Serurity. Do this now before you allow an individual to cause every State Attorny General to commit voter fraud. It is their job to insure that the canadates being presented for public office meet the nessesary BASIC requirements BEFORE the first ballot is cast.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Does the voter have standing to Discharge Judge Surrick at election time? Or should we all send Our Congressional Representatives Legal Notice to question Obama’s eligibility ?Matt.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Barack’s COLB says Aug 1961, AND the University of Washington in Seattle 2700 miles away, has his mom enrolled at the U of W in Aug of 1960. It is hard to believe both are true, and I trust the Records Office of U of W more than the COLB copy floating around on the net. Before this she attended U of Hawaii Manoa from Sept 26 1960 thru mid December. So the question is “From Dec 15th, 1960 to Aug 15th, 1961 Where was Stanley Ann Dunham?”

  43. Anonymous says:

    Dear Vice President Cheney,

    I remember seeing this story last year. “Cheney and Obama are Cousins”. In the Washington Post.

    You may know, the governor of Hawaii has refused to release Obama’s birth certificate. Apparently state law only allows relatives to request a copy. Since you are a relative, could you please make this happen ASAP?

    It is odd that I need a birth cert to get a drivers license, but Obama can run for president without one.

    Time is of the essence…thank you

  44. Anonymous says:

    News today is that the state of hawaii says the birth certificate is genuine.

    some of the following was copy/pasted…

    He was minor. Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

    It wouldn’t matter whether he was made an Indonesian citizen or not. He was a minor and couldn’t renounce his American citizenship.

    At the very bottom, it says would have to prove to a US official that he knew what it meant to renounce citizenship and was not being coerced into it. How old was he?

    I can’t see this happening.

    And, the date of the law is for the act itself, not of someone’s birth.

  45. Verity says:

    Law systems worldwide have been corrupted to suit the ‘do as they please’elite. National constitutions have been warped for the same reason.
    The people have the power to change all this but they are walking blindly into chaos – apart from a few very brave and good men………
    The EU and others have been putting billions of dollars into Obama’s campaign in order to elicit ‘change’ to order.

  46. Anonymous says:

    It is now Nov 6th and America is going to become controlled by a socialist marxist. I just feel upon this video I was not searching for it. I hope to God someone Mr. Berg can win the birth certificate issue. We are in for big trouble say good-bye to Capitalism, Freedom and Liberty.

  47. Loretta says:

    I personally think that charges of treason should be brought up against the Judge. He has an obligation to our country & has failed!!!

  48. Anonymous says:

    The State of Hawaii only stated that it was in “possession” of Obama’s birth certificate, it did not release any details.
    In order for them to make such a news release, that they were in “possession”, they would have had to have the express written permission from Obama himself.

    Which begs the question;
    Why not end all rumors and questions by producing the REAL birth certificate, rather than give your own website, Fight The Smears, or your former employer’s website, a suspect Certificate of Live Birth?

    Because Obama’s got plenty to hide.

    Obama is only President elect after the Electoral College meets in December, and if the candidate in question is found to be of questionable citizenship, the Constitution, Amendment XX, Section 3 kicks in.

    Pass these petition websites along;

Speak Your Mind