In what must be a real blow for those nasty and conniving individuals who have literally run out of dirty tricks in their grubby, filthy, deep pockets, a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has dismissed a trumped-up lawsuit filed by Philip J. Berg.

Berg, an attorney and a disgruntled former Hillary Clinton supporter, filed a lawsuit on August 21, 2008, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Barack Obama. Berg drew upon such sources as Inside Edition and the Rainbow Edition News Letter among other sources to argue that Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

Berg further alleged that, even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he relinquished his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia – at the age of 6 – with his mother who had married an Indonesian citizen. The following is the order granting the motion to dismiss Berg’s lengthy and ridiculous complaint.


NO. 08-4083



AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendant Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 20) and the Defendant Federal Election Commission’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 24), it is ORDERED that:

1. The Motion of Defendant Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED;

2. Defendant Federal Election Commission’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is



/s/ R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Judge Surrick found that Berg lacked standing – a judicial requirement that the person filing the lawsuit has been injured in some tangible way that a court is willing to recognize as deserving of redress. The court not only found that Berg lacked standing but also that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Berg immediately followed the dismissal of his ridiculous lawsuit with an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on October 30, 2008. It is truly amazing what the Obama haters are willing to try in order to prevent Obama from continuing his quest for the presidency.

Photo Credit: MySpace


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Democrats, Politics, U.S. Presidency, White House and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. dougherty107 says:

    The only way Obama ever won any of his elections was by getting his opponents of the ballot, so try not to throw stones in a glass house thanks.

  2. Whatever. The lawsuit was bogus and simply an attempt to stop Obama’s progress.

    By the way since you made an allegation that the only way he won was by getting his opponents off the ballot, you might want to support your statement with some actual facts instead of slinging more mud.

  3. WakeUpCall says:

    “In what must be a real blow for those nasty and conniving individuals” who dared to question The Ones eligibility how could they.

    The electors will also challenge him on this if he is elected and they have standing. His web site form just proves he was born, anyone born anywhere can get that form. It does not prove US birth and that is probably why he fights in Court rather than deliver the long form which he could have requested while in Hawaii.

  4. smrstrauss says:

    Actually, this understates the case. After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states. There were Several cases. I think I read that it was 11, and of course Obama won in every case.

    What is so interesting about these other cases is that while some of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berge had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” – and concluded that it was absurd.

    In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

    “(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:

    In Virginia, which was just ruled on yesterday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

    Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (

    (Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)


    The Court made the following findings:
    1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

    The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

    2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

    The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

    3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

    “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..

    is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

    4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

    “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

    2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

    Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963. However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

    The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

    5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

    The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

    I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

  5. Kenny says:


    I thought you would have already known about Obama’s previous political experience. –Lost first try at state rep. –came back and won state senate –had lawyers make public the divorce records of opponents in U.S. Senatorial race –gave a speech and — viola’ here we are.

    Read this link from October, sums up a lot of what people in Chicago already know. O.K. with them I guess, a win is a win.

    “Mr. Obama won a seat in the state senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified.” – Martin Fletcher, NBC News

    If Obama does win his first truly contested election, good for him. (Bad for U.S.?)


    P.S. Where do you think Barack Obama was born? How do you know? I was born in Parkview Hospital in Fort Wayne in 196x.[I feel old enough as it is] I have the original birth certificate (given to me by my mother a couple years ago) and an official duplicate certified copy that I got at the City County building before I got married. I think it will put a lot of questions to rest when Obama finally produces an actual birth certificate.

  6. Kenny:

    It is history now, and I suppose all of you who still can’t accept what just happened will continue to harp about the birth certificate and his political tactics.

    He has provided a certified birth certificate; however, his opponents are attempting to pick apart every small detail – claiming that the seal isn’t official, etc.

    Is it illegal to challenge voters and/or signatures? Isn’t that why both parties lined up attorneys to be at the ready to challenge questionable voters, etc. yesterday?

    You are grasping at this point. He challenged signatures – apparently a perfectly legal move and apparently successful, so there must have been issues with the signatures. And you criticize him because he had the savvy to do so?

  7. Smrstrauss:

    Thank you for your information. I had only seen and researched the Berg lawsuit. It just goes to show you how desperate the Obama opponents were to somehow derail his candidacy.

    I did not realize how many attempts had been made to raise the issue of his birth.

Comments are closed.