The Philadelphia Daily News has stated that Judge Surrick has ruled on the Philip J Berg Lawsuit. Judge Surrick allegedly ruled on the lawsuit last night, October 24, 2008. I have it on authority that the writer of the article, Michael Hinkelman, is a “rabid Obama supporter.” Mr Hinkelman does indeed publish gross inaccuracies (lies where I come from) about the case. The informed reader will immediately spot them.
Go ahead and read the biased account from the Philadelphia Daily News, the same newspaper that did not touch this story until the case was dismissed, and then read a more factual, authoritative account here:
Here are some exerpts from the article:
“Posted on Sat, Oct. 25, 2008
Judge rejects Montco lawyer’s bid to have Obama removed from ballot
By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News
hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656
A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.
He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg’s request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg’s complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.
They said that Berg’s claims were “ridiculous” and “patently false,” that Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.
Surrick agreed.
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.”
Read more here:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews
Here are Citizen Wells’ thoughts on the ruling:
- The US Constitution rules. Judge Surrick is bound to uphold the Constitution.
- Thousands of voters were disenfranchised during the Democratic Primaries.
- Thousands more voters will be disenfranchised if Obama is allowed to remain on the ballot.
- As the election progresses, control of the election process will shift from the states to the Federal Government. The following officials will be bound to uphold the Constitution:
- Secretary of State of each state.
- Election Board Officials.
- Electors.
- Governors.
- Judges.
- All of the above officials will be held accountable.
- Taking a cue from the Democratic Party will not be a valid excuse for not upholding the Constitution and allowing Obama, an illegal alien, to remain on the ballot or be voted for by electors.
Philip J Berg will appeal Judge Surrick’s decision and take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. The Citizen Wells blog will produce an article soon to help clarify how the Constitution must be upheld. In conjunction with the American public, we will hold all responsible for the election, accountable.
Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:
Citizen WElls 
A judge that refuses to uphold the Constitutional rights of all citizens? This is a travesty..
There is no independent confirmation of this ruling, no update on PACER or the District Court’s web site (maybe due to the weekend), and no link to the “34 page memorandum”. The Philly daily news must really have some “double secret” access to the court.
Has anybody gone to Kenya and checked if this hospital where Obama’s Kenyan grandmother claimed she witnessed Obma’s birth has a copy of his birth certificate? THAT would end it all. I searched the Internet for days and cannot find if anybody went to Kenya to check with that hospital.
So the constitution means nothing.That means no one has to obey any law henceforth.
The judge had to interpret and uphold the contitution rather than evade the responsibility and shift it to Congress. The constitution is clear on this issue. To rule that nobody has standing absent further legislation is absurd.
“Attorney” Berg has PLAYED YOU, HE KNEW WHAT THE OUTCOME WOULD BE, and said so, on his site.
He said (paraphrased)
1) FRCP 26(f) provides that the parties MUST FIRST HAVE A DISCOVERY CONFERENCE before propounding discovery.
This has NOT OCCURRED.
The Rule ALSO provides that a party may request expedited discovery (as has Berg). HOWEVER, the Court HAS NOT RULED on that motion, so the general rule still applies.
Requests for Admission are, by the rules, a discovery mechanism, the purpose of which is to expedite and/or streamline further discovery requests.
Berg is FURTHER HAMPERED in this argument by virtue of the fact that he has also filed requests for production of documents. In other words, HE WAS NOT relying on the Request for Admissions in order to streamline any of his discovery. HE CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
2) The DNC can SIMPLY file a motion to “withdraw admissions deemed admitted.” Courts routinely permit such “amendments” so long as (a) the party was not acting in bad faith – even when the party’s failure to respond by the deadline was the result of “excusable neglect” or inadvertence; and (b) the order would not cause undue prejudice to the requesting party.
Given that the defendants filed the Motion for Protective Order well BEFORE the discovery deadline (if, indeed, that deadline was operative by virtue of FRCP 26(f) somehow not applying), the argument that ‘they failed to act in good faith’ is a stretch. It’s also difficult to see how, from a legal perspective (if not from a public curiosity perspective), how Berg possibly could have been “unduly prejudiced.
On March 14th a suit was filed by Fred Hollander claiming that McCain was not eligible to be President due to the fact he was born outside the US. That suit was thrown out 3 months later because Hollander did not have standing.
Now comes the suit against Obama, thrown out for the exact same reason, lack of standing.
It seems the law acted the same in both cases.
obama is probably spending a lot of monay on this lowsuit,he has a bunch of lawyers in this lowsuit in Philadelphia ,wont it be easy if he just show his birth certificate,but he can’t because he is a citizen of Indonisia.not a citizen of the USA.are he wasn’t bearn in the USA.want this tell you that obama is a lier ? he canot be trust.
We as American Citizens need to demand that we have a legitimate Birth Certificate from Barack Hussein Obama. If our judges and Congress won’t follow through then we need to vote them out of office.
How do you plan on holding them accountable ?
I have emailed almost all states and spoken to some State officials. I will be revealing more tomorrow.
Stay tuned.