Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeff Schreiber on Berg Suit Dismissal
America's Right ^ | Saturday, October 25, 2008 | Jeff Schreiber

Posted on 10/25/2008 7:58:24 AM PDT by Technical Editor

Saturday, October 25, 2008 Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

The order 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, Judge Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—who 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, Judge 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 Surrick not only dismissed Berg's case, but admonished the attorney in several spots in the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Judge 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 Judge 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.

Berg, disappointed by the decision, 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?"

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: antichrist; berg; birthcertificate; certifigate; fraud; lawsuit; leftwingconspiracy; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last
To: Technical Editor
'To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.'

Standing=The Constitution requires it ...

and voters have the need and right to know BEFORE giving their vote!!

Another wotthless judge without the gonads to meet out justice when required and gets in the way of the law instead of upholding it,


101 posted on 10/25/2008 10:00:43 AM PDT by wubjo (nO Terrorists; nO Tyranny; nObama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

The suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records. Ohio was being added yesterday.

The precident has been set that the citizens have no standing.

102 posted on 10/25/2008 10:01:31 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: The Californian

It doesn’t technically matter WHO Berg is- and it doesn’t change the merits of his case. I’m just biased against anyone who believe the 9-11 truth crap.

But if you read the rest of my post- I am completely convinced Obama is lying about his birth and I agree with you- it’s a very simple matter for him- give the paper copy of his birth certificate to the press and satisfy those of us on the right-wing lunatic fringe ;)

103 posted on 10/25/2008 10:06:19 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Scarchin

When you were hired in the school system, did you have to show any form of IDs???

104 posted on 10/25/2008 10:08:26 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
Regardless of the legal outcome, the fact remains that Obama (through his Campaign) had a forged image created as a substitute for the real thing.

Then, since its release to the public four months ago, the image is still claimed to be Obama's "original birth certificate," which it absolutely is not because the original birth certificate looks nothing like the COLB.

There is one, and only, one reason why Obama has not shown either his "vault" birth certificate, a copy of his original birth certificate, or a current COLB:

Barack Obama does not have a US birth certificate to show, because no US birth record exists for Barack Obama in Hawaii, or any other US state or US territory.

The absence of a birth record means that Obama cannot prove that he was born in the U.S.A. -- the most important qualification for POTUS.

The battle over the birth certificate is still the #1 issue that will bring down Obama.

105 posted on 10/25/2008 10:09:17 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Sorry, didn’t mean to scorch you. I am just frustrated. It is not the fact that Obama is or isn’t telling lies, hiding facts of his birth, or anything else. It is the fact that he has come this far with no one vetting him.

I grieve for our country.

106 posted on 10/25/2008 10:09:28 AM PDT by The Californian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Scarchin

Why should I read some stinking blog!

It’s just some AHs personal rant.

107 posted on 10/25/2008 10:11:40 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Californian

My letter to George W. Bush:

Dear President Bush:

You are the Commander-in-Chief and chief law-enforcement officer of the United States, and I would urge you to immediately act according to your pledge to protect the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

What I think is that you need to defend the United States from those who are trashing the Constitution.

I think you need to step forward and say that it is your responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States, that the Constitution is our most basic law, and further, that you will perform the constitutional test of Barack Obama’s candidacy for president yourself.

Mr. President, you have the power to do this. You are the chief enforcement officer of all the laws of the United States. Please do your duty to stop the trashing of our basic law.

You are the man who can make this thing right - at least until we get the judges, the media, and the people weaned off the Kool-Aid. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but I need YOU to help our country - it’s either that or we can kiss it goodbye.


(I signed with my complete contact information)

108 posted on 10/25/2008 10:12:02 AM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
The precident has been set that the citizens have no standing.

It's breathtaking, isn't it?

The appeals should be interesting.

I knew there were several others underway- I haven't read them, have you? Do any seem better suited for a favorable ruling?

109 posted on 10/25/2008 10:12:30 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Scarchin

Screw you AH!

110 posted on 10/25/2008 10:12:55 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

There are currently lawsuits in nine different states on this subject. The lawsuits allege that the Secretaries of State failed to uphold their respective duties as the officials in charge of elections when they did not certify/verify that Barack Obama is eligible to be on the ballot as a presidential candidate.

I don’t know what will come from these suits, but I suspect that time is too short for anyone to do anything before the election. The ballots have been printed and distributed to all counties/cities. They cannot be reprinted and redistributed in time for the election.

Greta Van Sustren has publicly called for all of the candidates to release their birth certificates, but only because she’s sick of all of the e-mails on this subject.

Bill O’Reilly has called this issue “Internet garbage” and refuses to investigate it or even discuss it with Berg on the air.

111 posted on 10/25/2008 10:14:10 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: The Californian

:) No offense taken- and believe me, I share your frustration.

I knew I was in for some flaming this morning anyway- I flat out have problems with the people in the limelight bringing these issues to attention (Berg, Martin and Corsi).

Regardless- Obama has lied, is lying, and will continue to lie to us. And we watch grown adults who should know better get sucked in by him.

God help us.

112 posted on 10/25/2008 10:18:56 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

How fast can we do a class action suit, asking everyone in the country to sign online somewhere if they want to know whether Barack H. Obama is eligible to be President of the United States of America by virtue of his natural birth?

I personally believe he was born in Hawaii and eligible, but I’d still like to know for sure.

113 posted on 10/25/2008 10:23:35 AM PDT by Yaelle (One candidate fought America's enemies and one candidate owes all he has to America's enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

When I enlisted in the Air Force, my oath of enlistment called for me to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” Would that give me standing?

I say, hell yes.

114 posted on 10/25/2008 10:25:00 AM PDT by Yaelle (One candidate fought America's enemies and one candidate owes all he has to America's enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

Would it be possible, if Obama won the election, for a strong red state to sue the federal government if they were being forced to have a President that did not meet the requirements to be President, under our great Constitution, upon which all our laws are based?

115 posted on 10/25/2008 10:28:15 AM PDT by Yaelle (One candidate fought America's enemies and one candidate owes all he has to America's enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

Bush will never do this. Not in a million years.

116 posted on 10/25/2008 10:29:36 AM PDT by Yaelle (One candidate fought America's enemies and one candidate owes all he has to America's enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: The Californian
This issue, and the way Joe W. had his privacy invaded are both huge issues for me. Joe and his story are certainly out there, but this seems like it should come down to a local issue.

....."Remember the Obama girl from Texarkana being swept under the carpet....The Thought Police....

I want to file a counter complaint that false charges were made, that a false report was given to a peace officer. The Secret Service told me I cannot because they will protect the identity of the complainant. I also want the file they have on me destroyed and I want to know that my phone isn't tapped, etcetera. I am hearing a lot of 'Out of my Jurisdiction'.

Do I also hear jackboots?

Jessica Hughes Lufkin, Texas"

117 posted on 10/25/2008 10:35:05 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Another case in point that judges are out of control. Really supports the theory that we are no longer a democracy but heavily leaning to a communists America.

It is time to buy this book: Mark Levin authored the bestselling book, Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America (ISBN 0-89526-050-6), in which Levin claims that members of the judicial branch have "legislated from the bench."

118 posted on 10/25/2008 10:40:07 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: imfrmdixie
You can be a Senator/Legislator (state and federal) or a Governor and not be natural born. We take for granted that these people are qualified for President or Vice President simply because they have already been holding an office.

(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.)

In the city of Al Capone everything is possible!

I assume he sneaked through the cracks by the help of that city's ilks because of the racist's "no-touch" issue and was accepted on face value!!

Has there ever been such a screwed up criminal offense in the history of our 230 (something) Presidential election with million$ of million$ of dollar$ unaccounted for from Islamic/Jihadists nations to tilt this election. It is mind boggling we allow this to happen to our country!!!

119 posted on 10/25/2008 10:54:29 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Scarchin
Name ONE respectable person who is pushing this story.

As a TEACHER..(?) just gave thousands of Freepers here the stamp that we are NOT respectable persons!!!

120 posted on 10/25/2008 10:58:13 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson