DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATICNATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION

Philip J. Berg filed a response this afternoon to the motion for dismissal filed last week in Berg vs. Obama by Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The response "PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S, MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)" asserts that, the defendants' argument to the contrary, Mr. Berg has standing to pursue the case.

Mr. Berg provides precedents which he argues establish his standing and petitions the Court to deny dismissal and order the defendants to produce the documents in the previously requested discovery.

Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama’s eligibility through Subpoenas to the Government entities and the Hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiff has not received the requested discovery from the Defendants and two (2) of the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoena. For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery, including but not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate; and (2) a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and (3) a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of majority. If the Court is inclined to grant Defendants motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint pursuant to the findings of this Honorable Court. The complete filing is attached. Due to a problem with the Electronic Filing System, the filing was made via fax and will appear in PACER later this evening or on Tuesday.

----------VigilantAmerican said Well, I went to the link and while I can see how you’d certainly think the Illinois bar application perjury charge is somewhat shaky, I wouldn’t completely conclude that it’s been debunked. ----------

I’m curious. What part isn’t debunked? Berg alleges “On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record it specifically asks for “Full former name(s). Obama put “None,” when in fact he went by the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama. It is further believed Obama has used the name Barry Dunham. Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the penalty of perjury.”

As Jeff points out at www.AmericasRight.com: “According to the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the "full former name(s)" field is reserved for names which have previously appeared on the Illinois Master Roll of Attorneys and is NOT meant to include any names adoption prior to obtaining a license to practice law in Illinois. [citing IARDC.org] “A telephone call to the ARDC's offices confirmed that particular interpretation of the information on the commission's Web site.”

In other words, the Record doesn’t ask for names one might have previously held prior to seeking the Illinois Bar license.

Does this prove that Obama never lied on his bar application? No. But the only “evidence” that Berg cites to support his claim is no evidence at all. Which means that Berg has made an allegation that has no basis in any fact.

-------------
Yesterday, I just received an e-mail from a friend with the following links and a note saying something like “see any parallels?” This is, apparently, not the first time Berg has done this - that is, filed complaints without sufficient basis in fact (or, for that matter, standing).

Link 1; Link 2 (PDF); Link 3 (PDF)

All I can say is, well, WOW!
And, let's not forget Berg's RICO case against the Bush Administration for “causing” 9/11 or his case against the Supreme Court for its decision in Gore v. Bush.

If it weren't for this type of "precedent," I might be inclined to believe that Berg actually had something that maybe he just hasn't yet disclosed to the public yet. But -- history suggests otherwise. Yes, even a broken clock is right two times a day ... unless the screw holding the hands fell off. I see a few loose screws here.

I’ve said all along that Berg is a whackjob with a rep for chasing windmills, and normally would be considered our enemy, but in this case the enemy of our enemy is our friend of course.

The reply from the Attorney Paperwork and Red-tape Commission of the High Poo-Bah and whatever was tentative, not conculsive. The person answering said they were unsure of exactly what the blank for “names previously used” is for, but that they were inclined to think it’s for names used as a slimy lawyer.

***He’s playing softball here. Usually such a motion is filed with a request for a contempt charge when the subpoenas are not honored.

Have you read Berg's request for Denial of DNC's motion to dismiss, along with his recently updated complaint and restatement of his Discovery request?

Phil cannot ask for contempt charges from the Judge until after the Judge rules on Berg's Request to reject their Motion to Dismiss.

After the Judge denies their Motion to Dismiss, THEN, they will automatically be liable for contempt if they fail to comply the Judge's order.

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.