Sunday, October 26, 2008

Federal Judge dismisses the Foreign Citizenship lawsuit against Obama - Is the fix in?

Here is the latest in the continuing saga of my previous article from October 23, 2008 asking the crucial question: Is Obama not a U.S. Citizen? He Refuses to Answer Federal Lawsuit to Remove him from Ballot

The judge in the case of Berg v. Obama at 6:35 PM on Friday the 24th, (what better time to for the judge to avoid any attention than a late Friday evening weekend decision and press release that would lead to the HUGE coverage like this big 4 paragraph "story" by the MSM and Associated Press) dismissed the case against Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick's reasoning was primarily that Philip J. Berg esq. as Plaintiff didn't have "standing." Which in attorney-speak means he failed to prove or show how he would be "harmed" i.e. where the typical criteria in Civil Lawsuits is to show monetary harm to the plaintiff. Berg didn't cite any specific numerical dollar amount nor did he seek any; he asked simply for injunctive and restraining relief vs. Obama and the DNC.

Berg v. Obama's remedy required Obama and the DNC to simply prove Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be POTUS. If you can't (or won't) the judge had to order you off the ballot as a candidate for POTUS and the DNC must substitute a qualified candidate in all 50 states. Then, if shown to be ineligible as candidate for POTUS the judge would further rule on whether Sen. Obama meets the standards laid out for his currently held elective office and any criminal fraud referrals subsequent to illegal actions. Here is why I think the judge is so wrong on the issue of "standing". There are many instances where civil suits provide redress for Defamation and Slander that have no monetary relevance. An example would be the harm to your character, reputation, or public standing in a community by someones actions that are defaming or libelous, it's not always measurable solely as a tangible dollar amount.

Berg, evidently didn't impress upon the judge with his "standing" as a U.S. citizen, life-long 30+ year Democratic Party member, former Deputy Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania for Governor and U.S. Senate, and as a currently licensed and practicing Attorney sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution; that he had no standing or would be harmed significantly enough by the actions of an unraveled political party, political system, and national crisis ensured with a fraudulent candidate perhaps winning election as POTUS. For Gods sakes if he has no standing, what chance do we average citizens have?

The judge actually decided he wouldn't be harmed and lacked standing? Excuse me? Easily a point of contention on appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S. in my humble albeit common-sense based opinion. Really, who could accurately predict how much unfathomable economic "harm" or mayhem would befall the nation when it is thrust into virtual civil war or civil unrest of an unprecedented scale when Obama supporters fail to appreciate why after being elected; he would not be allowed to become President? Just think back to L.A. a couple decades ago and how the Rodney King verdict was received. Now apply a multiplication factor to that across our nation? What would it be, 10x, 20x, or even hundreds of times worse? Particularly given the fact that our American Media have done such a superlative job of avoiding this story nor reporting the existence of these lawsuits. No examination in-depth of the possibility that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS has been performed by the MSM. If he loses, this will appear not as a Constitutional mandate, but will be perceived by the masses as a blind-side sucker punch coming out of nowhere from Right field. The ensuing rage of incorrectly perceived injustice will make the American Media culpable and responsible for the severity of the reaction by way of their insistence to keep most Americans unaware of this story.

Could this be the "Crisis" that Joe Biden said "mark my words it will happen" and would fall upon Barack Obama shortly after he takes office? We all just assumed the action or test to be of an International or Terrorist nature from abroad. But what if this potential Constitutional crisis is what Joe inferred? Uncle Joe then went on to explain as he asked Obama supporters in Seattle that they would 'need to stand by Obama when it appears he did the wrong thing'?

The judge in Berg v. Obama was gutless and vapid. He further reasoned that it would be up to Congress and the Government to verify and determine presidential eligibility so he reasoned that Berg didn't have "standing" in that regard either. A completely ignorant basis for that decision as every third grader should know the Political parties have always been responsible for selecting and putting forth candidates and with that they should be qualified and "vetted" candidates for political office, on the local, state and Federal level. The Government does not choose who our candidates are going to be; we the people choose. As Berg stated, we are a government by the People, for the People. If we the people do not have "standing"; then we are not America any longer.

Berg released this Press Release, promising to take the appeal of his case now directly to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Given the judges own comments in his argument to dismiss, the best hope is with the suits that are filed with the states and the Attorney Generals that have the "governmental responsibility" for determining the eligibility of candidates on the ballots.

Also, in other suit news regarding Obama's citizenship status lawsuits, the judge in Hawaii a few weeks ago ruled on granting a hearing for an out of state citizens' lawsuit filed under the FOI (Freedom of Information Act) by Andrew Martin demanding Hawaii officials must make any of the "sealed" records or official documents (or confirm the lack thereof) relating to Obama's birth and hospital records available. The suit had asked for immediate access, or in any event not later than before the election. The judge granted them the hearing date and access to the documents, but after the election for Nov. 7th. Progress! Although it's a belated victory with the post-election date for release of documents; it is a victory for the right of access to information that Americans have a right to know about.

Wait a minute..hold on now.....they can't have any of that! On October 22nd, the defendants (State of Hawaii) appealed the lower judges ruling to the Hawaii Supreme Court. Why would they appeal a lower judges ruling about Obama's birth records? What do they care that in the judges view the request was a legitimate and lawful request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOI)? The Hawaii Supreme Court reviewd and reversed the lower courts ruling and have blocked the FOI request and the Obama birth records will remain sealed unless presumably ordered by the Supreme Court of the U.S. should Berg's appeal to the Supreme Court be heard, and is successful.

Could the Fix be in with the Democratic powers-that-be of Hawaii? This all occurs just when Obama is coincidentally traveling there to visit his reportedly ailing Grandmother just a day or two of the Hawaii Supreme Court decision? It sure doesn't pass the smell test to me. Just how powerful is the Democratic party in Hawaii? Local political experts predict that after the election Nov. 4th, the Hawaii State Senate will include only 2 Republicans in it's 25 member body. The Hawaii House of Representatives will number only 7 or 8 in it's 51 seat chamber. The total legislative Republican representation is about 10 of 76 elected seats. While it is true that the Governor of Hawaii is a Republican, she governs a state where effectively the entire state and local governments and bureaucracies are under Democrat control and power. Virtually all the judicial appointees have been made within this systemic domination after so many decades of this political monopoly.

Hey Sen. Obama, why are you hiding behind all these judges, lawyers, and legal tactics? All we concerned and doubting Americans want is one thing; the same thing that we all have to provide now just to visit Mexico, or Canada. Provide the legitimate proof required of your natural born citizenship and therefore eligibility to run for President of the United States of America. Why is this so hard? Why put the nation through the doubt, uncertainty and angst?

I am left with only one conclusion. Because you can't prove it. You aren't the qualified natural born citizen as stipulated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution; if you were you would have proved it to us already.

Barack Hussein Obama the time has come to put up or stand down. This nation c a n n o t survive a Constitutional Crisis of this magnitude should it come to that, especially on the heels of our current financial crisis. For the welfare of this nation you need to respond, reveal and prove; not obfuscate, ignore, delay, dismiss, hide or block any longer. Prove your legitimacy. Act like a President even if it is learned you aren't qualified to be one; and put America and Americans first.

For the sake of America and the sanctity of our Constitution; prove it, or end it.

Michael R. Bednarz

Additional information about other suits and the states filed are here below:

Non-partisan and independent reviews and examinations of Obama’s birth certificate as shown on his official website has evidence of tampering and in any case does not list any of the points of information commonly found which would make it traceable and verifiable such as hospital, doctor, size weight, foot prints etc.

Interestingly, all these state lawsuits would be dropped if Mr. Obama would simply provide the requested documents supporting his claim of being born in Hawaii.

Lawsuits in additional states are being added each day. For more information about each lawsuit, contact:

(HI) Andy Martin at email: current status:

(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:

(VA) Richmond, Virginia — A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed in Richmond, Virginia on Wednesday, October 22 before the Honorable Walter W. Stout III.

(OH) David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township - Warren Common Pleas Court in Lebanon



  1. Let us suppose you were right and that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    He WAS born in Hawaii. I’ve seen pictures of his birth certificate (or perhaps it was a certificate of live birth, in any case it is a legal document proving he was born in Hawaii) and there is a confirming notice in the Honolulu Advertiser, which I've seen pictures of too.

    Moreover the guy who is bringing the suit has never shown his alleged evidence. He claims that he has an audio tape from his Kenyan grandmother, which of course could be from any old Kenyan woman.

    The usual procedure when you want to prove something is that you produce the evidence to prove it. You do not claim that the other side’s not producing evidence against what you say is proof of what you say. I mean proof in the sense of convincing the public.

    But suppose on a wild chance that that the birth certificate and the notice in the Honolulu Advertiser were both wrong.

    Suppose that Obama were born outside the USA. Suppose that this fact were to be proven before the election. Would this make McCain president? No. It would merely make Joe Biden the presidential candidate of the Democratic party.

    Would Biden win just like Obama would? Sure.

    Would he win even bigger than Obama would? Maybe. You can’t call him inexperienced or a terrorist or a friend of Ayers, nor would people who vote against Obama because of his race or alleged Arab ties or alleged Moslem religion vote against Biden.

    Biden would get all the votes of Obama and maybe a few more.

    Suppose it was proven after the election. Would that make McCain the president? No. If the Congress really bought the fact that Obama was not naturally born in the USA, and that Obama was not eligible to be president (which is a stretch because it is controlled by Democrats), then in the process of approving votes they would rule Obama ineligible and Biden would be president. (But as I say, that’s a real big stretch.) If it were to go to the Supreme Court (which is a stretch because the court in the past said that the Congress has to decide such things), then would they give the election to McCain? No, at most they would give it to Biden.

    So, what is the point?

  2. smrstrauss in reply:

    Let me try and refute your points here for the sake of argument. First off my articles and position is based upon and couched here in the form of questions. I am only suggesting by his lack of convincing documentation and proof that only he (and the DNC) could easily provide, that there is a possibility he isn't who and what he states he is; a qualified candidate for POTUS. Obama has now led me to the conclusion over time that if he can't prove it; he must not be eligible. Let me be clear on this... I want him to prove me wrong! For the sake of our nation and Republic. Especially in this late stage with what could occur if Berg and my fears come to pass. Okay?

    Therefore, in a civil suit like this unlike a criminal suit it is the duty and obligation of the defendant to disprove the charges as Berg is being blocked from records and access to information including Obama's birth, college records, and even records in Mobasa Kenya for instance. By contrast when this very controversy came up in regards to McCain being born in Panama at the Canal Zone while his father served there, he provided everything requested immediately, Original Long form Birth Cert. and hospital records, and all access to military/medical records throughout his entire life, and it was proven that he is a natural born citizen quickly and cleanly. But, in contrast we have Obama, ducking and dodging. Why?

    In this suit if it went forward so to would his request to go forward with "discovery" and he gets to see their proof and documentation and they get to see anything, including the "tape" that Berg has. That said:

    The civil suit simply requires Obama to produce legal and verifiable Original documents as stipulated by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot prove it without access to his records. Long Form Hospital Birth Certificate, etc. amongst others. Because Barack has refused and had all his records sealed, including , as a result Berg doesn't have the ability to prove his case, Obama must prove his, for instance I have seen the Birth notice from the paper, anyone could put that in the paper, it's a paid notice of a birth by perhaps proud grandparents, without stipulation as to where he was born. In any event, they could offer it as proof, but I don't think it qualifies as legal evidence to ensure someone seeking the most powerful position in the world, POTUS. Further, in Berg's suit he contends regardless of Obama proving his birth in Hawaii he still faces two other scenarios negating his natural born eligibility.

    First: If his mother and father were both U.S. Citizens, no doubt-he's automatically natural born if in Hawaii. However thats not the case in his instance, his father as a Kenyan National. Then different criteria comes into play. Under Article II and how it's recognized, with a foreign father and his U.S. Citizen mother would have to have been 21 at the time of his Hawaii birth. She was not, she was only 18.

    Secondly: If Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step father and was granted Indonesian citizenship as claimed by Berg and supported by Indonesian records, including school documents, then unless he renounced his Indonesian citizenship upon returning to the U.S. to live in Hawaii, he is still an Indonesian citizen and our Constitution does not entrust the Presidency under Article II to anyone with other citizenship standing. Further, Berg contends and has evidence that Obama traveled to Pakistan under an Indonesian Passport as a citizen thereof due to both the U.S. not allowing any U.S. Citizen travel there, or Pakistan allowing any U.S. Nationals in during that time.

    Now accepting your scenario which I think could possibly happen. Suppose before the election occurs the Supreme Court decides this suit in Berg's favor? Obama proves to be ineligible and they grant Berg's remedy? Remember here, Berg is an avowed and lifelong Democrat. His motive is not and never was for McCain. It is for the Constitution. He filed this action before the Democratic Convention precisely so the DNC would replace the candidate that was ineligible. Yes, at that time it would have been Hilary, whom he supported, but they refused to answer the suit and we are where we are now. That is the remedy and injunction asked for and that would be granted to Berg if he wins. Replace the Candidate on the Ballot or Disqualifly Obama, and in that case, I think it disqualifies Biden too, he's not running for President, and it the disqualified candidate isn't legally able to be or serve as President, the assumption to the Presidency by the V.P. nominee is also not valid and he is not automatic by virtue of the no. 2 spot. Unless the DNC then decides to make Biden the nominee before the election.

    Here is the Constitutional Crisis. If Berg wins in the US Supreme Court before the election, the DNC has to replace the candidate. With whom? Biden? Maybe, but what about Hillary and say her Democratic patrons, she received more votes from Democrats than even Obama did? Now, what if after the election Berg wins? I think it gets even stickier and trickier. If per my above argument Biden can't ascend to the top of the ticket by virtue of being the selection of an ineligible candidate, do the Democrats forfeit their candidate as ineligible and McCain wins? That could happen. Or, does the Court decide that new elections should be held? And if they are, does Speaker Pelosi (assuming she's re-elected) assume the Presidency if we don't have the President Elect decided prior to Jan. 20th, 2009.

    All in all, ugly and crazy scenarios that we don't want to see come to pass. Is there any other position here but to agree now that Obama simply has to answer the legitimate questions before him, or step aside without further delay if he can't satisfy the legitimate standards of our Constitution.


    Michael R. Bednarz

  3. 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!!!


Comments? Post here.