How can a President of the United States pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution if he is in violation of it? If Barack Obama is elected President of the USA, this question may need to be addressed before his Inauguration.
So why are major media outlets not talking about this? As of 11:00 p.m. MST on October 26, 2008 a thorough search of websites for CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC & yes, even FOX news turned up nothing on the topic of a lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of PA regarding Obama’s citizenship.
A motion filed by Attorney Phillip J. Berg, a lifelong member of the Democrat Party, alleges that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen of the United States of America” and is therefore in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution which requires a candidate running for President of the United States be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. It is worth noting that Phillip J. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, former Chairman of the DNC in Montgomery County, PA. He also ran for Governor and Senator of the State of PA as a Democrat.
The motion for a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting Obama from running for President of the United States was filed by Attorney Berg on August 21, 2008. Berg is claiming that he has evidence to prove Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and therefore his nomination by the DNC and subsequent presidency, should he be elected is/would be null and void, requiring a second election in 2009.
Rather than produce a legitimate copy of Obama’s birth certificate, his attorneys chose instead to try to get Berg’s legal action thrown out on a technicality. Obama’s attorneys & DNC lawyers filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of standing, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For those of us who are not legal beagles, “standing” simply means if you file for a TRO against someone you have to be able to prove that you stand to be harmed should that individual/ party be allowed to continue with their current actions. An individual fails to present an “injury in fact” when the harm is “abstract and widely shared” so Berg had to be able to prove that he stands to suffer PERSONAL harm if this restraining order is not granted.
On October 24, 2008 Judge R. Barclay Surrick faxed to Attorney Berg a ruling said to be issued by Surrick. The order signed by Surrick states “Does the Natural Born Citizen Clause create a federal right the violation of which results in a cognizable claim? We think not.” Hence, the motion to dismiss the request for a Temporary Restraining Order was granted to Obama’s & DNC lawyers on the grounds that Berg did not stand to suffer harm.
Berg immediately issued a press release stating his intention to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Berg’s response, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?”
Obviously, this case is not over but here’s where it gets interesting…the fax header of the order to dismiss Berg’s motion came from a fax machine other than Judge Surrick’s. It appears the document was first faxed to Judge Surrick who signed it and subsequently the signed copy was faxed to Berg. A simple review of the order faxed to Berg shows several pages where there are 2 fax headers {p. 6, p. 19, p.27, p.33 & others}. A close look would also reveal that the page numbers do not match up…for instance, what shows up at the top of one page as “p.34/36” has “32” AND “page 34” at the bottom of the page.
{click here to view the faxed copy of this order to dismiss Obama, Judge Surrick Ruling 10 24 2008.pdf }
Furthermore, the order supposedly issued by Judge Surrick does not contain the required file/date stamp from the US District Court anywhere in the document. It appears that the order did not originate with Judge Surrick but was merely faxed to him for his signature.
Where did the original document come from? Who owns the fax machine where the 36 page order originated? Who wrote the order to dismiss, expecting Surrick to obediently sign it?
Many questions remain unanswered in this case, not the least of which is why didn’t the Obama camp simply put an end to this and produce the legal vaulted birth certificate {not to be confused with the bogus Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama’s web site!} and other evidence requested by Attorney Berg in the discovery process? The longer this drags on, the messier it seems to become.
To learn more about what precipitated the legal action to prohibit the DNC from nominating Barack Obama for President, listen to Phillip J. Berg, Esq. discuss his case.