Posted on 10/25/2008 11:45:25 AM PDT by WmShirerAdmirer
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.
Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
Excerpted from: http://www.americasright.com/
The order and memorandum 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, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, 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, 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 the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, 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 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.
Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."
In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.
"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."
While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president--with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth. This is only an excerpt (More of article at: http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html )
All rights and credit to Jeff Schreiber
Excerpted from: http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.htmlAll rights and credit to Jeff Schreiber
focus people.
im actually glad this is over so we can focus on real silver bullets to take this clown obambi out..
Berg has got to be aN Obama plant to cover up stuff that would hurt Obama. He is a DEMOCRAT!!!
This makes it more suspicious than ever.
“Lacked standing”???? WTF does that mean?
Coverup! We all have status.
Ping!
And while I'm asking questions, where did the notion of standing come from anyway?
ML/NJ
He’s Puma. However, his actions would have benefited Hillary the most.
And I have some really nice swampland for sale.
Raising 4.3 trillion US dollars: What Obama isn’t telling America about his “tax cuts”…
Philly’s another town with big shoulders.
no whitey tape, no API recorded phone call, no lawsuits, no kenyan b.c. I know we were all hoping for something big, but it didnt happen, so now it’s time to go to work.
We have to work hard to drag McCain over the finish line, even if he’s kicking and screaming.
1.) Protest the media write letters, call, picket. Lets keep this up until 11/4 - do whatever it takes.
2.) Put up a yard sign, bumper sticker, wear a shirt - show your party with pride.
3.) Donate time, money - Not everyone has extra money to give, but working the phone banks is almost painless, a hour here or there...and you get to meet a lot of great people. Phone calls can also be made from home. I’m going to be a first time poll worker.
4.) Sign petitions Grassfire.org has a acorn petition and they also have a birth cert.
5.) Blog, blog, blog place links to youtube vidios or stories on other sites, especially those who work with the pumas - the MSM wont get the word out, but we can!! Email all you know.
6.) Dont believe the polls In fact, dont believe anything the media tells you this election. Is there a bradley effect...maybe. What alot of people are missing is many republicans voted for Hillary in the primary. Why?? Operatin Chaos or because they didnt want a marxist like bho near the oval office and the republican candidate had already been decided. So, there are not as many dems as people would have you think.
7.) Remain positive Nothing postive ever resulted from being negative.
8.) PRAY
Dont be discouraged. We can do this!!
It means that the Judge could give a rat's ass about the Constitution of the USA. Obama should either provide a valid birth certificate or step down immediately. This isn't going away.
I am not sure what you are saying.
Your next best chance is 2016. he’s a 2 term president. Hopefully that 2 term restriction is a stronger part of the constitution than the natural born citizen part.
I think there are three other cases, one in Washington State, asking the courts to demand a certified birth certificate from Obama and the DNC. (I’ll try to find out where these cases are pending.)
But our candidate won't talk about it.
And all the RINOs who supported McCain have now deserted him for...wait for it...DIRTY RACE-BAITING CAMPAIGNING!!!
We. Are. Screwed.
DEMOCRAT! He is a democrat. Obama is using him to hide the truth til after the election. The AFI gave him legal right to the tapes. Now he will have them “studied” til after the election. The lawsuit was designed to fail.
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.