Posted on 10/25/2008 7:58:24 AM PDT by Technical Editor
Saturday, October 25, 2008 Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
The order 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, Judge Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—who 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, Judge 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 Surrick not only dismissed Berg's case, but admonished the attorney in several spots in the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Judge 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 Judge 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.
Berg, disappointed by the decision, plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
What????
You really ARE 8 years old!
LOL
“People with poor arguments make wild and asinine accusations.”
What is so “wild and asinine” about asking someone who wants to be President to prove they are eligible?? You sound asinine.
I think this just proves that he is not biased toward McCain, and that it increases his standing for the Obama lawsuit in the first place. Berg is a 30+ year Democrat. He may not be on our team, but this is certainly a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” He does need support for this case, because it looks well founded. A class action suit sounds like a great idea, that would certainly meet the standing requirement.
That’s quite lawyerly - stand up in the courtroom and scream for an HONOST election.
Good luck with that.
Please learn to read.
He accused me of being an Obama supporter - wild and asinine.
He’s a peasant. Don’t bother trying to knock any sense into him. Some people just aren’t fighters-what can you do?
It also proves that he’s nuts.
It was a statement of our rights, not a brief filed in court. The judges that don’t acknowledge that are undermining our system of voting. If you’re a lwayer, my condolences, then figure it out so your fellow law school grads can understand what every citizen knows.
Bravo Sierra ping.
My guess is that while Obama was in Hawaii looking in Grandma’s closets and attic for any remaining damaging evidence, his goons were threatening the judge in PA. Or even offering him a promotion by Obama if he wins. Nothing would surprise me.
I don’t think you understand what “rights” are and where, according to our Founders, they come from.
I’m not a LWAYER or a lawyer - but I do know the Constitution and the difference between laws and rights.
Note that this very, very late ruling has the (specifically-intended) effect of preventing effective time to counter and get attention to the legality of Obama’s birthplace.
Though, of course, if there were ANY evidence (even a doctor bill for the delivery, or a hospital parking fee or baby photographer's check) that Obama was born in HI, then the demoncrats could have shown it back in September. Instead, there is NOTHING - except statements from people back in Kenya that claim he was born in Africa because BOAC refused to let his mother make a 2-day flight so soon before delivery.
First, how do you know it isn't true? And second, why are you assuming Obama will be President? I suspect you are an Obama troll -- you certainly act like one.
I am putting out a plea. Can two constituitanal lawyers please, please post plain, commonsense arguments to both sides of this issue. I would appreciate seeing it as a separate post, and in a format that could be presented to local newspapers. A brief history would also be helpful.
This seems to be a huge issue, but only because Obama refuses to release his birth certificate.
As a matter of course, all parties should submit their birth certificates - including Sarah Palin and Joe Biden... John McCain has already presented his.
I am not super good on a computer, but I would cut an paste both sides of this argument and submit them to my local newspaper.
Perhaps we can eliminate all the messy court cases, congress, etc. and just submit a thoughtful contrast of the facts to every local paper in the country and let the voters decide. Many local papers will post the two sides of a debate - I would love to see this.
Sorry if this has already been suggested or done.
All that legal mumbo jumbo is secondary to the right to an honest election. When you lawyer-types realize there is somthing above your ability to twist, delay, and whittle away at those rights, we'll all be better off.
You clearly have an agenda.
Cool you jets junior.
Wow - the slightest dissent around here lately makes one an Obama troll.
It isn’t true because the McCain campaign and high level supporters check this out. There’s nothing there.
I don’t assume anything. I was responding to a question about process.
Are you an illiterate childish troll? — you certainly act like one.
I figure the words “We The People” should give standing to all citizens.
Or try this ... when I enlisted in the Air Force, my oath of enlistment called for me to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”
Would that give me standing?
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.