Monday, October 6, 2008
Berg Files Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
This morning, prominent Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint in his ongoing case against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and others, arguing that Obama is in fact not a natural born United States citizen and, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is ineligible to serve as president of the United States of America.
Now, this does not mean that the amended complaint has been filed. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits amendments by leave of court, which means essentially that the judge must sign off on this type of pleading before it is filed.
It should be known that any party is entitled to amend a pleading, such as a complaint, once and at any time before a responsive pleading is made. That being said, the motion to dismiss filed by Barack Obama and the DNC was a motion attacking Berg’s pleading and is not considered a responsive pleading in itself. Furthermore, according to the rules and, as Berg accurately states in the brief which supports the Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, such leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.
If, however, Judge R. Barclay Surrick finds that there is some sort of actual prejudice to Obama and the other defendants, he can deny leave to amend or grant it with restrictions. Seeing that Berg has filed this particular motion fairly early in the whole process, I expect it will be granted. However, because this motion for leave to amend was filed by Berg after the defendants filed the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon on which relief can be granted, Judge Surrick could deny leave if he believes that Berg still cannot state a proper claim. Then again, despite what my grade point average suggests, I really don’t know all that much.
In the amended complaint which Berg is seeking to file in the wake of a motion to dismiss filed on September 24 by Obama and the Democratic National Committee and his own Opposition and Brief filed last week, Berg added a few claims and a few defendants, as well as rehashed the original allegations made more than a month ago in the initial complaint.
As expected, Berg added Pedro Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, given Cortes’ role in fomenting and overseeing the electoral process in the Keystone State. He has also added, however, California Sen. Diane Feinstein in her role as Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Commission on Rules and Administration, and the U.S. Senate Commission on Rules and Administration itself. The latter, according to the amended complaint, is “responsible for investigations into the qualifications of the President and Vice President candidates Federal elections” while the former “has primary authority” for oversight with regard to aspects related to ethics, campaign and election reform.
Berg is seeking, among other things, an order that Feinstein and the Rules Commission–along with the FEC–immediately conduct an investigation into “the fraudulent tactics of Obama” and into his citizenship status as well.
“The Senate should be investigating qualifications for higher office and for the Senate itself,” Berg said. “We’re thinking, at this point, that Obama is an illegal alien and therefore should be arrested, tried and deported. He certainly cannot hold his Senate seat.”
He also added a paragraph further addressing and supporting the court’s jurisdiction over the matter at hand, questioned in the motion to dismiss filed by Obama and the DNC. The paragraph echoes a portion of the argument made by Berg in his Opposition to the defense motion, that the District Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 5 USC §702, which states, in relevant part, that “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” This was a major part of his Opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Obama and the DNC, and according to Berg goes to the failure of the Federal Election Commission and the DNC to investigate Barack Obama, his campaign, and the more than $400 million taken in under alleged false pretenses. From the complaint:
They are responsible for verifying the credentials and qualifications of Members of the Senate, contested elections and acceptance of incompatible offices. Moreover, in addition to the verification of a candidates qualifications, eligibility and credentials, they are responsible for Federal elections generally, including the election of the President, Vice President and Members of the Congress.
In addition, Berg confronted the defendants’ assertion that he lacked standing–the same argument from which three similar cases against Arizona Sen. John McCain were thrown out this year–and included the same supporting arguments he made in the Opposition and Brief. He asserts all of the same statutory and common law arguments, and even looks to show a little frustration:
There is absolutely no other way for Plaintiff to ensure his constitutionally protected rights. The only option Plaintiff had was to bring this action. This is the first time in American History a “naturalized” citizen and/or illegal alien have been allowed to campaign for the Office of President of the United States. There are not any other ways to establish or determine the legal status of our Presidential Candidates, whether Republican and/or Democratic. The FEC and DNC have refused to verify and furnish Plaintiff with Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof. Plaintiff has standing to challenge any person(s) citizenship and/or nationality status pursuant to statute, 8 U.S. C. §1481(b).
Berg said this morning that, with regard to standing, he’s just trying to “cover the board” in an attempt to look forward to the future, to look past Judge Surrick and the District Court if necessary.
“The longer we’ve been waiting, the more we’ve been doing further research, the more we’ve been finding out,” Berg said. “If Judge Surrick doesn’t grant standing, we’re hoping that the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court will look at the work we’ve done and grant it. I do think the Supreme Court would hear this case. We think we should get it there because it’s an issue of the utmost importance which hasn’t been touched yet.”
“Still,” he said, “I just want Judge Surrick to issue an order.”
I may be wrong, but it looks like he added some further information from Indonesian law and history in support of his assertion that Obama relinquished U.S. Citizenship–if he had it to begin with–when he was adopted by stepfather Lolo Soetoro upon moving from Hawaii to Indonesia with his mother. The information was in the brief supporting his opposition, but apparently not in the original complaint.
Comment: The Media’s behavior is shameful. Why is this not being reported? Further: What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999? Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations? Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act?
Tags: Abuse of Process, Berg v Obama, Biden, Chicago Politics, Democrats, DNC, DNC served, Drugs, Larry Sinclair, Limo Sex, McCain, Media bias, Obama, Obama served, Obama smearing, Obama Thugs, Palin, Privacy, Republicans, Respect, RNC, Sex, Smears, Truth