You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Philip Berg’ tag.

     The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas, apponited by President George HW Bush in 1991, seems to think that, at least on its face, that the citizenship questions hovering over Barack Obama, should at least be reviewed.

     Procedurally, both the Leo Donofrio case (against the NJ Secretary of State) and the Philip Berg case (against Obama and the DNC) were submitted to the Supreme Court Justice responsible for the circuit they lie in, which, in both cases, fell to Justice Souter. As we are all aware, Justice Souter denied the writs for emergency stays.

     Historically, they would have been the end of it. Although the Rules of Procedure permit the case to be resubmitted at that point to “any” of the Justices, rare is the occasion that another Justice moves the case to the conference agenda for discussion, out of a basic respect for the original Justice.

      Justice Thomas may believe that the matter should be heard, or he may have done this as a means of getting the Justices en masse to deny Donofrio’s case. Either way, his action is rare among the Justices.

     Our President-elect, Barack H. Obama, has resigned his seat in the United States Senate less than two weeks after his election, the earliest any President-elect has done such an action. In the two weeks since his election, Obama has maintained a somewhat low profile, except for a 60 Minutes interview, a trip to the White House to check out the new “digs”, and meetings to set up his Administration. He even took the future First Lady to dinner at their favorite Italian restaurant in Chicago for a three hour quiet dinner. And all of this while the number of lawsuits and challenges to his eligibility to be elected the President continue to mount.

     Dr. Alan Keyes has become a party to a California lawsuit seeking to have the Secretary of State require verification of Obama’s birth records. Philip Berg’s case is pending an answer from the Obama lawyers before the U.S. Supreme Court. There are lawsuits pending against several other Secretary of States with similar issues as expressed in Dr. Keyes’ complaint.

     In the Washington Times Weekly, a full page ad ran in the November 17th edition that hit the streets this weekend:


     The answer to all of this seems so simple: Barack Obama should simply release the verifiable original document that the State of Hawaii recently acknowledged that they had on file. The time, the moment, is now, to put this matter to rest. There are far too many issues facing this Nation to have the air of uncertainty about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility remain as we move forward. Yes, 52% of the electorate voted for Obama, but if he cannot meet the Constitutional requirements, he cannot be permitted to take the Oath of Office– the oath that says he will “uphold the Constitution”.

      As noted at, the election of Obama can actually become a good thing, if the Republicans respond accordingly. Jeff Schrieber wrote that Harry Truman brought us Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter brought us Ronald Reagan.

      The challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility did not end last night when he was elected President. Supreme Court Justice Souter did not issue an injunction to stop the election as Philip Berg had requested in his filing of Berg v. Obama, which was probably not expected to happen. However, at the same time, the request for a writ of certiorari was not denied or dismissed. In fact, the Obama team has until December 1, 2008 to respond to Mr. Berg’s motion, at which time Mr. Berg will have the opportunity to respond.

     All of this would seem to be a nuisance to the man who was just elected to be President of the United States, and as a nuisance, it could easily be put to rest…. unless there is actually something at issue within the typewritten document housed at the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics. I still lay odds on Canada!

      This is the announcement from Philip Berg’s website and the Supreme Court docket:

Justice Souter’s Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg’s application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied. (The U. S. Supreme Court Docket is below.)

The defendants are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December first, after which Mr. Berg will have an opportunity to respond.

No. 08-570
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

Seventy six days to Inauguration Day, 2009.

      In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by 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.

From Judge Surrick's ruling

From Judge Surrick,_Surrick’s_102008_Ruling[1]+(2).jpg

      At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

     From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.

     Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

     Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision?  Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.


    If I had to surmise from the manner in which things have evolved in this election  process, I would link it 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.

        I am in the process of reviewing the memorandum, but one item that immediately caught my attention in a brief glance was this comment in the footnotes:

Moreover, the Court In Bullock did not limit or in any way invalidate votes that had already been cast; nor did it void the results of the elections that had taken place. Se Ed. at 136- 37, 149 (affirming that court’s permanent injunction of the filing fee law). By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotIy contested presidential primary in living memory.
Pg 11

Points to Ponder:

    (1) Why was the PACER system “links” in the Berg v. Obama docket disabled just MOMENTS before the decision was faxed out? Is it possible that the Judge had actually issued a DIFFERENT ruling, and was FORCED to issue the one that was sent to him?

   (2) Does this explain the comments from the Obama camp all through Friday the 24th that ALL Obstacles to the White House had been overcome, and “they now had a clear path.”


     After Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Obama’s qualifications was dismissed yesterday, it seems that it became “acceptable” for members of the mainstream media to report on the story, which had been held primarily to the internet. The Associated Press and FOX News have both had stories on the case.

     In a press release earlier today, Berg questioned Judge Surrick’s decision that Berg lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, then who does?” to question the constitutional requirements of a candidate for the office of the President. Mr. Berg has stated that he is going directly to the United States Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals. Pesumably, since time is of the essence to prevent a potential Constitutional crisis, Berg wants to get this matter before our highest Court.

Stay Tuned!

     Although disappointed, but not defeated, Philip Berg had somewhat expected that the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick would dismiss his lawsuit challenging Sen. Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. With 10 days until the election, with the volume of controversy growing daily, Berg sees us heading toward a Constitutional crisis.

Philip Berg

     For a legal analysis of the Judge’s 34 page decision, which was handed down shortly after 6pm yesterday, I refer you to Jeff Schrieber’s . Suffice to say, the legal reasoning is of course sound as to whether or not Mr. Berg had proper standing to bring this action. Later today, through a press release or press conference, the Pennsylvania attorney will outline his plans to pursue this action through the Court of Appeals, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

    It is worthy to note that although Mr. Berg’s case, touched upon only lightly in the mainstream media, has had a large cyberspace following, it is by no means the only case challenging Obama because he has failed to release key documents that would satisfy all of this controversy. There are cases filed in Washington, California, Connecticut, and Florida, too name just a few.

    Mr. Berg has also revealed that he has audio tape of Obama’s paternal grandmother with information about Obama’s birth, and it has been noted that he is representing the African Press (API) in their release of their phone conversation with Michelle Obama that reportedly took place last week. API has released some of the information that is on the taped conversation through their blogsite, and based on the volumnious traffic they have experienced, they are acknowledging that the expedient release of these tapes is important for the Americans to know the exact nature of the intentions of a possible Obama administration, directly from one of Obama’s closest advisor’s, his wife!

The “FIST BUMP” heard around the world!!

     Checking on the Federal Court’s PACER online system throughout the day, monitoring for any new motions in Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Obama’s candidacy, I was able to access all of the filed documents…… up until about two hours ago!!!

      It seems that sometime between 6pm & 8pm this evening, the links on all 27 filed documents, including the original Complaint, through the most recent filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment, were all DISABLED. Yes, you can still see the complete list of filings and the dates of the filings, but they can no longer be opened.

      Computer glitch? Jeff Schrieber of responded to my email as being a bit surprised, and that he’d see what his sources have to say. Could a voluminous ruling be forthcoming? In Berg’s favor? In Obama’s favor?

2:08-cv-04083-RBS BERG v. OBAMA et al
Date filed: 08/21/2008
Date of last filing: 10/22/2008


Dates Description
Filed & Entered:   10/22/2008
Docket Text Motion for Order
Filed & Entered:   10/22/2008
Docket Text Motion for Summary Judgment
Filed & Entered:   10/21/2008
Docket Text Motion for Order
Filed & Entered:   10/21/2008
Docket Text Motion for Order
Filed & Entered:   10/21/2008
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
Filed & Entered:   10/21/2008
Docket Text Motion for Order
Filed & Entered:   10/20/2008
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss
Filed: 10/20/2008
Entered: 10/21/2008
Docket Text Praecipe/Request
Filed & Entered:   10/15/2008
Docket Text Application/Petition
Filed & Entered:   10/09/2008
Docket Text Response in Opposition to Motion
Filed & Entered:   10/07/2008
Docket Text Motion to Intervene
Filed & Entered:   10/07/2008
Docket Text Motion for Leave to Appear
Filed & Entered:   10/06/2008
Docket Text Motion for Leave to File
Filed & Entered:   10/06/2008
Docket Text Motion for Protective Order
Filed & Entered:   09/29/2008
Docket Text Response in Opposition to Motion
Filed & Entered:   09/24/2008
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss
Filed & Entered:   09/18/2008
Docket Text Application/Petition
Filed: 09/15/2008
Entered: 09/16/2008
Docket Text Certificate of Service
Filed: 09/11/2008
Entered: 09/12/2008
Docket Text Summons Issued
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2008
Docket Text Praecipe/Request
Filed & Entered:   09/09/2008
Docket Text Summons Returned Executed
Filed & Entered:   09/09/2008
Docket Text Motion to Expedite
Filed & Entered:   09/03/2008
Docket Text Alias Summons Issued
Filed & Entered:   09/02/2008
Docket Text Praecipe/Request
Filed & Entered:   08/22/2008
Docket Text Motion Hearing
Filed & Entered:   08/22/2008
Docket Text Order on Motion for TRO
Filed: 08/22/2008
Entered: 08/25/2008
Docket Text Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney
Filed: 08/21/2008
Entered: 08/22/2008
Docket Text Summons Issued
Filed: 08/21/2008
Entered: 08/22/2008
Docket Text Jury Demand
Filed: 08/21/2008
Entered: 08/22/2008
Docket Text Complaint
Filed: 08/21/2008
Entered: 08/22/2008
Terminated: 08/22/2008
Docket Text Motion for TRO

PACER Service Center

     Ok, so its all legalese and legal jargon, but, if I understand the legal theory, it appears that Philip Berg’s motions today were filed because Sen. Obama’s legal team failed to comply with Berg’s requests for discovery and admissions.

     In the Berg v. Obama lawsuit, Philadelphia attorney Philip A. Berg had filed requests for production of certain documents, as well as admissions of certain statements. In a typical response, the defendants would have filed “denials” to the list of request for admissions.

     Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36(a), requests for admissions are deemed “admitted” if the opposing party fails to respond within 30 days of the request, unless there was an order from the Court to stay the discovery process.

     This is the list of “admissions” that had been requested of Obama, and based upon Rule 36(a), they may now be legally deemed admitted:

  • Admit you were born in Kenya.
  • Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
  • Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
  • Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
  • Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
  • Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
  • Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “” is a forgery.
  • Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
  • Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
  • Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
  • Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
  • Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
  • Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
  • Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
  • Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
  • Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
  •     Also today, the Federal Elections Commission filed a Motion to Dismiss this claim alleging that Philip Berg does not have standing to bring this case. The Judge has not yet ruled on the Obama team’s similar Motion.

         Adding to the flurry of actions going on with just two weeks until the election, the African Press, which has reported that it has a taped conversation between their editor and Michelle Obama, wherein it is suggested that Mrs. Obama makes some strong statements that could be potentially damaging to the campaign, is reportedly arranging with FOX News to release the tapes publically. It is important to note that API is making it clear that there is no monies involved in these negotiations.


          The net result of the Berg filings today is to set the scene for the fact that by admission, Obama is not Constitutionally eleigible to be the President of the United States.


         The African Press blog has been inundated with emails and comments since it first stated last week that they had been contacted by Michelle Obama regarding disparaging stories about Barack Obama’s citizenship. As the API has noted, they knew there would an interest in their story, but they were not prepared for the brutal attacks that the Obama campaign and their supporters have initiated.

         After carefully reviewing their materials, the API today is stating that they are being represented by the Law Office of Philip Berg, Esq. Mr Berg, of course, has a lawsuit against Obama and the DNC pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal Court, challenging Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be President. There has not been a confirmation of this representation on Mr. Berg’s website ( ).

         America’s Right ( ) has acknowledged that he has spoken with Mr. Berg, and that information will be forthcoming. His blogsite says that Mr. Berg did acknowledge that he has been retained to represent API regarding any legal ramifications upon the release of this tape.

         If this story is credible, it would appear that Sen. Obama would have no choice but to address the issues that Mr. Berg has raised, in conjunction with the alleged contents of Mrs. Obama’s conversation with API. It strike me as odd that the Obama campaign so quickly responded to the initial story, and has not subsequently added it to their “Fight the Smears” pages.

         Since time is of the essence, this may be the catalyst that the Court needs to move on Mr. Berg’s motions. Should get very interesting!

         America’s favorite pasttime is baseball, and some Presidential candidate has the audacity to get the first pitch of a World Series game moved 30 minutes so he can put forth a 30 minute infomercial on the Messiah’s,… I mean the Obama’s message. Let’s be realistic– by October 29th, that 30 minute infomercial isn’t going to get its money’s worth of chenged minds!

        That being said, I was listening to an interview this morning of Jose Canseco, regarding his book “Juiced”. The accusations made in his book were the basis for the unraveling of the steroid use in the Major Leagues of Baseball. Superstars like Roger Clemmons and Barry Bonds have been brought into the spotlight for steroid use.

         Canseco was asked about the backlash from his revelations, the naming of names, in his book. In asking the question, he was asked how many lawsuits he’s defending. Canseco said that if every word is true, a lawsuit would be fruitless. To date, no one mentioned in Juiced has even threatened legal action.

         That leads me to Sen. Barack Obama. Think of the accusations that have been made against him. Some he addresses, others he ignores. Some he has his internet hit-squad go after, others he just ignores. There are some though, that would have a team of lawyers in court filing motions and cease and desist letters if the accusations were false.

           For example, Larry Sinclair’s allegations of doing cocaine with Barack Obama in a limousine, followed by two gay sexual encounters, have been splattered across the internet and the pages of the GLOBE. He held a press conference in Washignton DC at the National Press Conference, and was subsequently arrested on trumped up charges through the office of Delaware’s Attorney General Beau Biden (eldest son of VP candidate Sen. Joe Biden). Larry has just traveled several thousand miles attending rallies with his signs and flyers, making his claims very public. Yet not one legal action from the Obama campaign.

          On the other side, the Obama team is trying to avoid producing possibly incriminating documents that have been requested in the case of Berg v. Obama to prove his birth place and citizenship. As a distraction, the Obama team has use Blog Talk Radio to be its pit bull, shutting down any blog radio site that interviews or discusses Philip Berg or his case. The reason given: Mr. Berg’s comments that question the veracity of Obama’s own stated word, assumed as Gospel without need of review, are deemed to inciting racism.

           Additionally, the Obama team has not countersued Mr. Berg for libel and defamation of character based on Berg’s allegations.

          So look for the lawsuits and we might just see the answer!