vs.
Defendants
:
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)
Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within
Opposition and Brief in support thereof to Defendant’s, Barack Hussein Obama
[hereinafter “Obama”] and the Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter “DNC”]
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the following
grounds:
• Plaintiff has standing to bring suit against Obama and the DNC pursuant
to the following:
(1) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702;
(2)
Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to FEC v. Akins
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998);
(3)
Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1481(b);
(4) Plaintiff has Standing under 5 U.S.C. §552(B);
(5) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, Civil Rights
and Elective Franchise; and
(6) Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction.
• Claims are stated in which relief can be granted. Pleadings in a Complaint
are that of Notice Pleading and not Fact Pleading;
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 2 of 35
• Plaintiff has suffered
and imminently will suffer injury – an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized; and
•
The injury suffered by Plaintiff is the kind of injury that Congress
expected might be addressed under the statute. Plaintiff is within the zone of interest
protected by the statute or constitutional provision.
• It is imperative Obama be Court Ordered to turn over the following items
in order resolve the issues presented prior to the Presidential Election:
(a) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” version ( “original” long
version) Birth Certificate; and
(b). A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship; and
(c) A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.
At the time Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was requesting protections
from the Court in order to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the
Democratic Presidential Nominee as Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the
United States. However, Obama was nominated by the DNC as the Democratic
Presidential Nominee. For this reason, Plaintiff must amend his Complaint and will be
requesting this Court leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
A. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party.
Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the
United States Constitution. Plaintiff has donated money and billable hours to Democratic
Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee. Plaintiff has
relied on the DNC’s promises to uphold our Constitution, which includes properly
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 3 of 35
vetting our Presidential Nominee and ensuring our Party’s Nominee is eligible to serve as
President of the United States pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States
Constitution.
In addition, Plaintiff has trusted the Federal Election Committee (“FEC”) that
they would ensure our Presidential and Congress candidates were eligible for the
positions which they were seeking and running a fair and legitimate campaign process.
Plaintiff has relied on the FEC, DNC and all our Elected Office Holders to uphold our
Constitution and to ensure an illegal alien and/or a naturalized citizen would not be able
to secure the position of President of the United States.
The DNC has pledged and promised Plaintiff and all Democratic individuals they
believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions and our traditions are proper and
work.
The DNC pledged and promised Plaintiff and all Democratic individuals they will
ensure our Constitution is not a nuisance and have assured Plaintiff and democratic
individuals the United States Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It makes
freedom and self-governance possible, and helps to protect our security. The Democratic
Party has pledged and promised Plaintiff and other Democratic individuals they will
maintain and restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return
our Nation to the best traditions, including their commitment to government by law.
Based on the DNC’s promises and assurances, Plaintiff and other democratic
individuals have donated money in good faith to the DNC and other Democratic
Presidential Nominees. Money donated to the DNC is used to
plan the Party’s
quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promote the election of eligible Party
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 4 of 35
candidates, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, with both
technical and financial support; and works with national, state and local party
organizations, elected officials, candidates and constituencies to respond to the needs and
views of the Democratic electorate and the nation.
In vetting the Presidential candidate, among other things, the DNC and FEC are
required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and
the Presidential nominee, if elected, is qualified and eligible to serve pursuant to our
United States Constitution.
In order to be eligible and qualified to run for the Office of the President of the
United States you must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II,
Section I.
There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann
Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack
Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records,
were married on or about February 2, 1961.
Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961
and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother
on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in
Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her
pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at
her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births
during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in
Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 5 of 35
“registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in
Hawaii.
Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii,
Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital
and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,”
states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the
subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.
Furthermore, the Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by
the Education Laboratory School, attached as
EXHIBIT “1”
, did a several page article
of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter
reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in
the Star Bulletin, attached as
EXHIBIT “2”
, and this time, Maya states Obama was
born August 4, 1961 in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children.
Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer published
an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and
located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan
citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen, attached as
EXHIBIT “3”
.
Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his
mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about
1966, when Obama was approximately five (5) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann
Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii
University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship,
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 6 of 35
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up residency in Indonesia. Loss of
citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1967) required that
foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization
occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a
national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows
the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is
presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an
acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama,
giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and
his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
Obama admits in his book, “
Dreams from my father
” Obama’s memoir
(autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left
Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their
move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been
enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his
mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in
school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his
son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male
acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian
State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of
2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of
1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code
(Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie)
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 7 of 35
states in pertinent part,
State citizens of Indonesia include:
(viii) children who are born
outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by
father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made
prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage;
Republic of Indonesia
Constitution 1945,
As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second
Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002,
Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states,
“(1) Citizens shall consist of
indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized
[sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian
citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia
.”
Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian
citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents,
and the adopted
child is given the same status as a natural child
The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual
citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother
was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian
spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to
attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore,
in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a
citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with
Government records.
Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in
Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration, attached as
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 8 of 35
The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual
citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother
was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian
spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to
attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore,
in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a
citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with
Government records.
Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in
Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration, attached as
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 8 of 35
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 8 of 35
EXHIBIT “4”
, in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his
citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of
birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is
listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show
Inside Edition
, whose
reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama
was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of
the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required
to carry government identity cards, or
Karty Tanda Pendudaks
, as well as family card
identification called a
Kartu Keluarga. The
Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal
names of all family members.
Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian
citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence attached hereto
supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen
and bears the status as an Indonesia
natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file
applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a
naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama
and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.
Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court
process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged
(which only required the signing of a birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro,
one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his
citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was
required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural
citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 9 of 35
Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian.
Again
, the
registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the
Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.
Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual
citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.
In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague
Convention of 1930.
In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten
(10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely
In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten
(10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely
The
Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual
citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.
In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague
Convention of 1930.
In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten
(10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely
In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten
(10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely
no
way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever
held such. Obama could have
only
become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed
with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a
Certification of Citizenship.
Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never Naturalized
in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to
Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and
therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of
Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.
Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981.
The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in
turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and
Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide
arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 10 of 35
men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so
dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-
Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official
business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have
success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled
on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal
every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India,
Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he
was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon
“taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a
foreign state…after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§1401(a)(1) Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or
adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s
school record attached as
Exhibit “4”
.
Plaintiffs as well as many other democratic American citizens have requested
proof of Obama’s citizenship status, however to no avail. Obama has promised to be an
open and honest candidate, however, refuses to remove any doubts from Plaintiff’s and
all the other democratic minds and prove his eligibility to serve as President of the United
States.
Plaintiff’s civil rights under the due process rights and equal protection of the
laws secured by the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth (14
th
) Amendment have been violated
by Obama’s illegal campaign and will continue to be violated if Obama is allowed to
continue his campaign and if elected, assume the position of President of the United
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 11 of 35
States. The DNC and FEC have allowed Obama to continue his campaigning, knowing
these issues have arisen and have failed to take and/or instigate the proper investigation
into said matters to protect Plaintiff and other registered voters. Therefore, the only
option Plaintiff had to secure and protect his civil rights was to bring action before this
Honorable Court. Moreover, our laws which protect Plaintiff, a legal registered voter,
and other registered voters from fraudulent campaign schemes have been violated by the
Defendants, 2 U.S.C. §437c, 2 U.S.C §437(g). Plaintiff has standing to bring suit
pursuant to 5 U.S. C §702, as well as 8 U.S. C §1481(b).
Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the Liberty clause of the Fourteenth (14
th
)
Amendment of the United States Constitution have already been violated. It has been
announced in the main stream media that Obama’s “briefing” has already begun into our
National Secrets, our Nations Top Secrets, which Obama is not privy too and in violation
of our National Security, as Obama is not a legal citizen of the United States. This has
placed Plaintiff and other citizens of the United States in grave danger. Plaintiff’s
Liberty as guaranteed will further be violated if Obama is allowed to be voted into and
assume the position of President of the United States; Plaintiff will be further damaged
and is in serious jeopardy.
Plaintiff filed the within action on or about August 21, 2008 against Defendants
seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, declaring Obama an illegal alien and/or only a
“naturalized” citizen ineligible to serve as President of the United States and enjoining
the DNC and FEC from placing Obama’s name on the ballot and prohibiting Obama
from further campaigning to be elected as President of the United States, a position he is
ineligible to hold.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 12 of 35
Plaintiff faxed a copy of the complaint to Obama, the DNC and FEC on August
22, 2008 prior to the hearing on the TRO before this Honorable Court. Defendants were
further served by personal service on September 4, 2008. Neither the DNC nor Obama
have supplied any type of proof of Obama’s citizenship status and/or eligibility to serve
as President of the United States. Instead, they waited until the last hour and filed their
Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff has asked for a simple resolution. Plaintiff has asked that Obama supply
a genuine certified copy of his original long version “vault” Birth Certificate and a
certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance and/or Certificate of Citizenship. If in fact
Obama can prove his “natural born” citizenship status, which he
cannot
, then he has not
been prejudiced in anyway, but instead Plaintiff has been protected and his civil rights
secured. However, if Obama is unable to supply said documentation, then he needs to
withdrawal his candidacy, again which will eliminate Plaintiff’s deprivations and instill
Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected safeguards and rights.
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).
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 13 of 35
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not perform background checks
and/or verify their eligibility on our Candidates to hold Office. According to the FBI,
once a candidate is voted into Office of Congress, they are members of Congress and
therefore they are given a Secret Clearance, again, without any type of background check
and/or verification processes performed.
Plaintiff, as well as other Democratic voters have and are suffering the total loss
of confidence in the DNC primary process because of the massive cheating and
skewering of rules to make an illegitimate ineligible candidate the nominee in violation
of DNC rules and the Constitution, robbing voters of their voices and votes. Plaintiff and
millions of other Democratic voters have lost all trust in the integrity of the FEC and
Democratic Party leaders by the total failure of the DNC to perform the most basic of
functions by insisting any candidates produce basic documents in vetting their eligibility,
especially after there were repeated requests demanding Obama’s eligibility be proven
with certified legitimate documents which had not been forged. This failure to perform
even the most basic of due diligence has shattered Plaintiff’s faith, along with millions of
Democratic voters, in the Democratic system.
Plaintiff has been damaged financially for all monies donated, billable hours
spent supporting the Democratic candidates, taxes paid by Plaintiff which went to the
Secret Service for their protection of Obama for the past twenty (20) months and for the
financial costs and time expended of this litigation, when Defendants could have very
easily investigated, verified and obtained proof of Obama’s eligibility to serve as
President of the United States, if in fact he is eligible.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 14 of 35
Plaintiff has suffered damage to his reputation and discrimination as a result of
attempting to protect his rights and verify the eligibility of Obama to serve as President
of the United States. Plaintiff has been repeatedly called a racist and verbally assaulted
for bringing forward this lawsuit against Obama. Plaintiff is not a racist and is a paid
Life Member of the NAACP. Obama himself stated to a crowd of his supporters,
“I
need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to
talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you
to argue with them and get in their face”
, see the newspaper article published in the San
Francisco Gate, by Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press Writer, on September 17,
2008, attached as
EXHIBIT “5”
. Obama is promoting attacks on non-supporters,
which is creating racial tension and violence in our communities.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the verification and proof requested herein by
way of requests, filing this action, Admissions and Request for Production of Documents
served upon Defendants September 15, 2008 and by Subpoenas served upon agencies
who could supply the documentation to prove Obama’s citizenship status. To date,
Plaintiff has not received anything. Plaintiff has received two (2) letters from agencies
that were served with subpoenas claiming they need Obama’s signatures to comply
and/or the confidentiality of the documents were protected from disclosure to third
parties under 5 U.S. C. § 552. See
EXHIBITS “6” and “7”
.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 15 of 35
B. THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AS PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO BRING THE WITHIN
ACTION
The DNC and Obama have filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1), claiming this Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction as Plaintiff lacks standing. This claim is inaccurate, as this Court does have
subject matter jurisdiction and has the inherent power to hear this case.
However, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint.
This case is easily distinguishable from
Hollander v. McCain
, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008), where the Court held that the Plaintiff did not have
standing based on the alleged harm he would suffer should McCain be elected President
despite his alleged lack of eligibility under the natural born citizenship clause, Art. II, §
1, cl. 4.
The factors used in the Court’s decision were that: (1) McCain’s candidacy for the
presidency, whatever his eligibility, was “hardly a restriction on voters’ rights” because it
in no way prevented them from voting for somebody else in the primary election; and (2)
the harm claimed “standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of
all citizens in constitutional governance” (the Court citing
Schlesinger v. Reservists
Committee to Stop the War
, 418 U.S. 208, 217(1974); and (3) Plaintiff did not “allege
personal injury fairly traceable to the Defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct” (the Court
cited
Allen v. Wright
, 468 U.S. 737(1984) at 751; and (4) McCain was “unquestionably
an American citizen.”
In this case, (1) Obama’s candidacy for the presidency in the general election as
opposed to the primary elections prevents citizens from voting for Hillary Clinton despite
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 16 of 35
her immense popularity; (2) the harm Plaintiff suffered is particular to him because he
has been denied the constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate; (3) Plaintiff’s
claims are traceable to the Defendants’ unlawful behavior in failing to disclose
information to which voters are entitled; and (4) Defendants have failed to show that Mr.
Obama is “unquestionably an American citizen.”
Therefore, the factors used in
Hollander v. McCain
clearly favor Plaintiff’s
standing.
1. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack thereof. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the
complaints and requests. In addition, Plaintiff has attempted to secure documents from
other locations, which are required to turn the documents over pursuant to FOIA,
however, once again has been refused. The DNC and FEC have failed to act in their
Official position and take the steps necessary to turn over the documents and institute a
proper investigation to protect Plaintiff.
1. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack thereof. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the
complaints and requests. In addition, Plaintiff has attempted to secure documents from
other locations, which are required to turn the documents over pursuant to FOIA,
however, once again has been refused. The DNC and FEC have failed to act in their
Official position and take the steps necessary to turn over the documents and institute a
proper investigation to protect Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack thereof. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the
complaints and requests. In addition, Plaintiff has attempted to secure documents from
other locations, which are required to turn the documents over pursuant to FOIA,
however, once again has been refused. The DNC and FEC have failed to act in their
Official position and take the steps necessary to turn over the documents and institute a
proper investigation to protect Plaintiff.
5 United States Code §702
states:
“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. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than
money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof
acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be
dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or
that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a
defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United
States: Provided, that any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 17 of 35
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 17 of 35
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to
FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to
FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
5 United States Code §702
states:
“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. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than
money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof
acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be
dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or
that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a
defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United
States: Provided, that any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 17 of 35
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 17 of 35
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to
FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to
FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
5 United States Code §702
states:
“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. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than
money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof
acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be
dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or
that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a
defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United
States: Provided, that any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 17 of 35
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 17 of 35
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) “affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the
court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or
equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to
suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
The FEC and the DNC have failed to take any action into the investigation of
Obama, his fraudulent campaigning scheme which he has obtained over $400 Million
Dollars, knowing he is not a U.S. Citizen.
2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to
FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
2. Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to
FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the appropriate documents to prove Obama’s
citizenship status, or lack there of and has requested investigation into the eligibility
status of Obama. The DNC and the FEC have completely ignored the complaints and
requests.
2 United States Code, §437c (b)
states:
(b) Administration, enforcement, and formulation of policy; exclusive
jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions
with respect to elections for Federal office
(1) The Commission shall administer, seek to obtain compliance
with, and formulate policy with respect to, this Act and chapter
95
and chapter 96 of title 26
. The Commission shall have
exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of
such provisions.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit, restrict, or
diminish any investigatory, informational, oversight,
supervisory, or disciplinary authority or function of the
Congress or any committee of the Congress with respect to
elections for Federal office.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 18 of 35
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 18 of 35
2 United States Code § 437d. Powers of Commission
states in pertinent part:
(a) Specific authorities
The Commission has the power—
(1) to require by special or general orders, any person to submit, under oath,
such written reports and answers to questions as the Commission may
prescribe;
( 3) to require by subpoena, signed by the chairman or the vice chairman, the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all
documentary evidence relating to the execution of its duties;
(4) in any proceeding or investigation, to order testimony to be taken by
deposition before any person who is designated by the Commission and
has the power to administer oaths and, in such instances, to compel
testimony and the production of evidence in the same manner as
authorized under paragraph (3);
(9) to conduct investigations and hearings expeditiously, to encourage
voluntary compliance, and to report apparent violations to the appropriate
law enforcement authorities.
Plaintiff is a registered voter who has standing to seek Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief against the FEC, DNC and Obama pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §702. Plaintiff has a right,
which is secured to him by our laws and the United States Constitution, for verification
of our Presidential Nominee’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States prior
to the elections. Plaintiff as well as other Democratic individuals submitted complaints
to the DNC and the FEC, requesting verification of Obama’s citizenship status and
eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The FEC and DNC had a duty to
investigate Obama’s citizenship status, the fact Obama has refused to prove his eligibility
and obtained in excess of Four Hundred ($400) Million Dollars in Campaign Funds, is
based on a fraudulent scheme if Obama is unable to prove his “natural born” citizenship
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 19 of 35
status,
2 U.S.C. §437(g)
. The FEC is responsible for the administration, enforcement;
exclusive jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions with
respect to elections for Federal office,
2 U.S.C. §437c(b)
. (emphasis added)
Defendants’ refusals to perform said inquiry and provide proof of our Democratic
Presidential candidate’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States is in
violation of the very laws stated for Plaintiff and other’s citizens of the United States.
Obama, knowing he is not an eligible candidate to serve as President of the United States,
began campaigning for the Presidential seat. Obama’s campaign has brought in over
Four Hundred ($400) Million Dollars in donations based on a fraudulent campaign,
which has been allowed by the Defendants, the FEC and DNC. Plaintiff and other
democratic citizens brought the issues to the attention of the DNC and the (FEC) who
have refused to take any action to protect Plaintiff and/or all other democratic citizens,
which is in violation of the United States Laws outlined above. Plaintiff has demanded
proof of Obama’s eligibility, however to no avail. The DNC and the FEC have a duty to
investigate the issue and disclose the information ensuring Obama is eligible to campaign
and serve as President of the United States, to Plaintiff and the public, who are being
harmed by the fraudulent conduct of Obama, a Presidential Candidate and the DNC’s
Nominee.
When Congress confers standing on litigants, the generalized grievance
constriction does not apply. Congress confers standing on any individual who has been
aggrieved by the denial of information required to be furnished pursuant to Statute. It
matters not that most people are or will be entitled and suffer a “generalized grievance”,
the statutory entitlement is sufficient.
FEC v. Akins
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998).
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 20 of 35
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 20 of 35
FEC v. Akins
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), held, in pertinent part
:
“1. Respondents, as voters seeking information to which they believe FECA
entitles them, have standing to challenge the FEC’s decision not to bring an
enforcement action. Pp. 6-14………
(b) Respondents also satisfy constitutional standing requirements. Their
inability to obtain information that, they claim, FECA requires AIPAC to make
public meets the genuine “injury in fact” requirement that helps assure that the
court will adjudicate “[a] concrete, living contest between adversaries.” Coleman
v. Miller,
307 U.S. 433, 460
(Frankfurter, J., dissenting). United States v.
Richardson,
418 U.S. 166
, distinguished. The fact that the harm at issue is widely
shared does not deprive Congress of constitutional power to authorize its
vindication in the federal courts where the harm is concrete. See Public Citizen v.
Department of Justice,
491 U.S. 440, 449
-450. The informational injury here,
directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently
concrete. Respondents have also satisfied the remaining two constitutional
standing requirements: The harm asserted is “fairly traceable” to the FEC’s
decision not to issue its complaint and the courts in this case can “redress” that
injury. Pp. 8-14.
FEC v. Akins
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion. at p. 14) the Court stated:
“As commonly understood, the Federal Election Campaign Act seeks to remedy
any actual or perceived corruption of the political process in several important ways.”
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion. at p. 20) the Court stated:
“Given the language of the statute and the nature of the injury, we conclude that
Congress, intending to protect voters such as respondents from suffering the kind of
injury here at issue, intended to authorize this kind of suit. Consequently, respondents
satisfy “prudential” standing requirements. Cf. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3
(1997)”
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 21 of 35
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 21 of 35
FEC v. Akins
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion. at p. 20) the Court stated:
“Given the language of the statute and the nature of the injury, we conclude that
Congress, intending to protect voters such as respondents from suffering the kind of
injury here at issue, intended to authorize this kind of suit. Consequently, respondents
satisfy “prudential” standing requirements. Cf. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3
(1997)”
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 21 of 35
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 21 of 35
FEC v. Akins
, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (Opinion at p.21) the Court stated:
“Indeed, this Court has previously held that a plaintiff suffers an “injury in fact”
when the plaintiff fails to obtain information which must be publicly disclosed pursuant
to a statute. Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (failure to
obtain information subject to disclosure under Federal Advisory Committee Act
“constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue”). See also Havens
Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
455 U.S. 363, 373
-374 (1982) (deprivation of information
about housing availability constitutes “specific injury” permitting standing)”.
The United States Constitution Article VI states, “This Constitution, and the laws
of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
the land……… The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United
States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution.”
Furthermore, the Federal Elections Campaign Act [FECA] is supposed to protect
Plaintiff and other registered voters from the fraudulent schemes involved with Federal
Elections.
3. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to
8 U.S.C. §1481(b)
Further Standing is granted to Plaintiff under
8 U.S.C. §1481(b)
, which states:
“Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or
proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the
provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or
party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance
of the evidence…….”
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 22 of 35
Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact
Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,
Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he
would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which
is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain
any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States
nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of
eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 22 of 35
Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact
Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,
Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he
would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which
is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain
any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States
nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of
eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.
Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact
Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,
Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he
would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which
is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain
any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States
nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of
eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.
3. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to
8 U.S.C. §1481(b)
Further Standing is granted to Plaintiff under
8 U.S.C. §1481(b)
, which states:
“Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or
proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the
provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or
party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance
of the evidence…….”
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 22 of 35
Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact
Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,
Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he
would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which
is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain
any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States
nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of
eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 22 of 35
Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact
Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,
Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he
would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which
is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain
any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States
nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of
eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.
Plaintiff incorporates all previous pages as if fully set out herein. If in fact
Obama ever had any type of citizenship status in the United States, he lost said status
when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. In this case,
Obama, could have regained his U.S. citizenship status, if any were held, however, he
would have had to renounce his Indonesia citizenship, upon turning eighteen (18), which
is required by Indonesia to relinquish citizenship, and take the necessary actions to regain
any type of U.S. citizenship status, if any existed. Obama relinquished his United States
nationality by maintaining his naturalization in Indonesia, a foreign state, after the age of
eighteen (18) in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(1), which is a voluntary expatriating act.
Again
, as previously stated, since Obama’s birth was legally Acknowledged by
Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which
the evidence attached hereto supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen
and bears
the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would
have been required to file applications with the U.S. State Department and follow the
legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned
from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then
Obama is an illegal alien.
Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981 using his
Indonesian passport. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the
time of Obama’s travels, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama was required to
give affirmation of allegiance to Indonesia to secure his Indonesian Passport or in
renewing, which is required every five (5) years, his Indonesian passport and/or
traveling on said passport, Obama was giving affirmation or reaffirmation of allegiance
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 23 of 35
to Indonesia in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1). Taking an oath or making an
affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having
attained the age of eighteen years provides loss of nationality by native born citizens, 8
USC §1481(a)(2).
Since Obama was acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro as his son and/or was adopted
by Lolo Soetoro and was a citizen of Indonesia, according to his school record attached
as Exhibit “4”, Obama is clearly an Indonesian citizen.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 23 of 35
to Indonesia in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1). Taking an oath or making an
affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having
attained the age of eighteen years provides loss of nationality by native born citizens, 8
USC §1481(a)(2).
Since Obama was acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro as his son and/or was adopted
by Lolo Soetoro and was a citizen of Indonesia, according to his school record attached
as Exhibit “4”, Obama is clearly an Indonesian citizen.
to Indonesia in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1). Taking an oath or making an
affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having
attained the age of eighteen years provides loss of nationality by native born citizens, 8
USC §1481(a)(2).
Since Obama was acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro as his son and/or was adopted
by Lolo Soetoro and was a citizen of Indonesia, according to his school record attached
as Exhibit “4”, Obama is clearly an Indonesian citizen.
4. Plaintiff has Standing under
5 U.S.C. §552
Plaintiff has standing to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994). Anyone denied information under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994) has standing to sue regardless of
his or her reasons.
Akins, Et Al. vs.. FEC
, 322 US. App. D.C. 58; 101 F.3d 731; 1996
U.S. App. LEXIS 31253 (1996), 524 U.S. 11 (1998);
Public Citizen vs. FTC
, 276 U.S.
App. D.C. 222, 869 F.2d 1541(D.C. Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public;
the lack of information on Mr. Obama’s citizenship, caused by the FEC’s action, limited
the information available to him as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and
inform the public and policymakers. If a party is denied information that will help it in
making a voting decision that party is obviously injured in fact. In
Akins
, the court noted
that: “[a] voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes suffers a
particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just as a government
contractor, allegedly wrongfully deprived of information to be made available at the time
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 24 of 35
bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even if all other bidders also suffered an
injury.” Even if all individuals who voted for any of the other Democratic candidates for
President, suffered the same injury that does not take away from the individual injury that
Plaintiff suffered.
5. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, Civil rights and Elective
Franchise
28 U.S.C. § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise states in pertinent part:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized
by law to be commenced by any person: ….
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity
secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress
providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of
the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of
Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.
Plaintiff has the right to secure equitable relief under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3) and
(4).
In Baker v. Carr
, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), federal jurisdiction arose under this section and
Plaintiff had standing because his individual right to vote was affected. Like many other
United States citizens, Plaintiff lost the opportunity to vote in the general election for a
qualified Democratic candidate, because Obama withheld information critical to
determining his ineligibility for presidency, knowing he was not a “natural born” citizen
much less a citizen at all and knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the
United States. Based on Obama’s fraud, people supported him instead of an eligible
candidate.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 25 of 35
6. Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction
Congress has conferred upon federal courts jurisdiction to decide
federal
questions
i.e., cases or controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the
United States (
28 U.S.C. § 1331
)
Article III
permits federal question jurisdiction in every case in which the laws of
the United States are an “ingredient” of the suit in question.
Osborn v Bank of the United
States
, 22 US 738 (1824). Under Osborn’s reading of Article III
, federal question
jurisdiction can exist even if the federal ingredient never arises in the suit, or if it has
been already decided. “Congress may confer on the federal courts jurisdiction over every
case or controversy that might call for the application of federal law.”
Verlinden BV v
Central Bank of Nigeria
, 461 US 480 (1983).
The issues presented in Plaintiff’s complaint clearly arise under the Constitution
and Laws of the United States, and are a Federal Question presented.
There are no laws which specifically delegate whose responsibility it is to carry
the burden of verifying the eligibility of a President. The question is who has the
constitutional authority to resolve disputes regarding presidential candidates’ eligibility?
Our Constitution and laws are in fact, silent on how questions of presidential candidates’
eligibility are resolved. The Constitution or our laws do not contain provisions on who is
to make determinations of the compliance of the presidential candidate with Article II,
much less that they have exclusive ability to do so. The closest we have is 2 U.S.C.
§437c, if in fact illegal or fraudulent campaigning is involved.
Moreover, there are absolutely no statutes or laws which dictates how a person,
such as Plaintiff, are to demand proof of our Presidential candidates eligibility in order
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 26 of 35
for Plaintiff to be able to form a proper decision on who to cast his vote for. Each entity
contacted, whether Governmental or State has refused such duties, including the DNC
and FEC.
Again
, the closest we have is 2 U.S.C. §437c, if in fact illegal or fraudulent
campaigning is involved.
This is the first time in History these Federal questions have been presented.
There is not any statutory reference or case law pertaining to such questions.
The Constitution guarantees forms of redress through our Court systems. This
very Court has the inherent power to hear and resolve the Federal questions presented.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme
law of the
United
States
. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government
.
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss, 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 after attaining the age of
majority and allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint.
C. PLAINTIFF HAS PLED CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE RELIEF
CAN BE GRANTED.
Defendants claim Plaintiff has failed to state claim in which federal relief can be
granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint under Counts 1, 2 and 3 which clearly assert Obama was
born in Mombasa, Kenya and his mother was not old enough and did not meet the
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 27 of 35
residency requirements pursuant to The Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and
§301(a)(7) of the INA states the U.S. citizen parent, Obama’s mother, must have resided
in the U.S. for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14) in
order to give Obama “natural born” citizenship status in the United States.
United States
of America v. Cervantes-Nava
, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S.
, 155 F.3d 81, 85-88
(2d Cir.1998).
In order to determine Obama’s citizenship status, the Court must look to the
applicable law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth.
Runnett v. Shultz
, 901 F.2d 782,
783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child
born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time
of the child’s birth”).
Additionally, Obama’s mother relocated Obama in or about 1967, when Obama
was approximately five (5) or six (6) years old, when she married Lolo Soetoro, an
Indonesian Citizen. At that time, Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. Obama’s
mother became naturalized in Indonesia and Obama, being a minor, followed his
mother’s nationality, Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b).
As stated above, Obama admits in his book “
Dreams from my father
” Obama’s
memoir (autobiography) that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, he and his
mother moved to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already
been enrolled in school located in Jakarta prior to his arrival. The only way this could
have occurred, is if in fact Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, acknowledged
Obama as his son, which acknowledgement was made prior to Obama’s eighteenth (18
th
)
birthday.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 28 of 35
Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the
son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of
Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning
Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning
Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata)
(KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie). Republic of Indonesia Constitution
1945, a
s amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the
Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002,
Chapter X, Citizens and
Residents, Article 26 states
“(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples
and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance
with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living
in Indonesia
.”
Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was adopted by his
Indonesian stepfather. Obama was registered in a public school Fransickus Assisi School
in Jakarta, Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, showing his citizenship as
Indonesian. The school registration is attached as
EXHIBIT “4”
. The law on the books
at that time did not allow foreign children to attend a public school in Jakarta. The
school obtained verification from the Government of the child’s name and citizenship
status.
Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states “
It is stipulated that an adopted child has
the same status as a natural child and that his or her relationship to the birth parents is
severed by adoption
.
.
“
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 29 of 35
Indonesia Constitution,
Article 2 states: “on the condition of ratification of the
adoption by the District Court: “The law stipulates that children of mixed couples
automatically assume their father’s citizenship, and a divorced wife cannot take custody
of her children because they have different citizenship.”
Since Obama’s birth was legally Acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian
citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence attached hereto
supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen
and bears the status as an Indonesia.
Dual citizenship was not allowed or permitted in Indonesia until the year 2006.
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride
(dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations, at the time in question, did not recognize
neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.
Indonesia did not allow Dual Citizenship or Dual Nationality; thus Obama is not a
U.S. Citizen, he is Indonesian. Neither Obama’s place of birth or the nationality of his
American parent are relevant, the Indonesian Law takes precedence under
The Master
Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930
.
The United States
accepts the existence of Dual Nationality only if the other country does.
Hague
Conventions
are applied by the United States and this has been in effect since before
1930. (Memorandum on Nationality, including Statelessness: Document A/CN.4/67,
prepared by Ivan S Kerno, International Law Commission, United Nations General
Assembly, 6th April 1953.) Thus, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and my not even
be a naturalized citizen.
As a direct result of the Defendants actions, or lack thereof, Plaintiff’s civil rights
secured to him under the Fourteenth (14
th
) Amendment of the United States Constitution
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 30 of 35
have been affected. Plaintiff has been deprived, as stated above, money, time, billable
hours and Liberty and has suffered reverse discrimination and violations of the Freedom
of Information Act.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require notice pleading, not fact pleading,
so to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Plaintiff “need only make out a claim upon
which relief can be granted. If more facts are necessary to resolve or clarify the disputed
issues, the parties may avail themselves of the civil discovery mechanisms under the
Federal Rules”.
Alston v. Parker
, 363 F. 3d 229, 233 n.6 (4d Cir. 2004), quoting
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.
, 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (“This simplified notice pleading
standard relies on liberal discovery rules…to define facts and issues and to dispose of
unmeritorious claims.”)
As this Court is aware, in deciding a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the Court accepts the factual allegations of the Complaint as
true and draws all reasonable inferences therefore in favor of the Plaintiff.
Armstrong
Surgical Center, Inc. v. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital
, 185 F.3d 154, 155 (3d
Cir. 1999),
Morse v. Lower Merion School District
, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (4d Cir. 1997).
In making a determination, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.
Budinsky v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources
, 819 F.2d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff brought this action prior to the Democratic National Committee in
attempts to have Obama removed from the ballot if he was found to be ineligible.
Unfortunately, Obama was nominated as the Democratic Nominee to run and serve for
the President of the United States. The relief sought in all three (3) Counts of Plaintiff’s
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 31 of 35
complaint request a Declaratory relief deeming Obama ineligible to serve as President of
the United States as he is not a “natural born” citizen pursuant to the United States
Constitution, Article II, Section I and Injunctive Relief removing Obama from the ballot
and stopping all of his campaign efforts to secure the Office of the Presidency.
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss, 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 and
allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint.
D. CONCLUSION
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;
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 32 of 35
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.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Philip J. Berg
Dated: September 29, 2008 ___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 33 of 35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Opposition and Brief in
Support thereof, to Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National
Committee’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
, Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) was served via electronic filing on the ECF
System, this 29 day of September
th
2008 upon the following:
John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esquire
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL, LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)
lavellej@ballardspahr.com
Joseph E. Sandler, Esquire
SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC
300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
sandler@sandlerreiff.com
Robert F. Bauer, Esquire
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690 Attorney’s for Defendant’s
RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Barack Hussein Obama and
The Democratic National Committee
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 34 of 35
The Federal Election Commission (FEC)
999 E. Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20463 In pro se
Served via regular mail postage fully prepaid
/s Philip J. Berg
Dated: September 29, 2008 ___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 13 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 35 of 35
, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.
Citizen WElls 