Here are the court documents filed on behalf of Obama and the DNC:
DMEAST #10118497 v3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :
DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants Democratic National
Committee and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for an order
dismissing the Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over the claim asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying this Motion is a Brief in Support of
Motion to Dismiss and a proposed Order.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.
John P. Lavelle, Jr.
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
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 1 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
2
Of Counsel:
Joseph E. Sandler
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
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
RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Senator Barack Obama and the
Democratic National Committee
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 2 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :
:
BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama submit
this Brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s allegations
regarding Senator Obama are patently false, but even taking them as true for purposes of
this Motion, plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed immediately. This Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of
a candidate for President of the United States. Plaintiff fails to state a claim in any event
because there is no federal cause of action asserted in the Complaint.
I. Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiff Berg alleges that he is a “Democratic American,” Cmplt. ¶6, and that he
is a “Democratic American Citizen.”
Id
. ¶44. Mr. Berg then alleges that Barack Obama,
the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 3 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
2
as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(contrary to fact) that Senator Obama is not a natural-born citizen.
Id
. ¶3. Mr. Berg
seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President; an
injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring
the Democratic National Committee from nominating him.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court is to determine “whether the complaint alleges facts on its face
which, if taken as true, would be sufficient to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction.”
FOCUS v. Allegheny County Ct. of Common Pleas
, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996). The
plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing the
elements of standing.
Id
. And in reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court “must accept all factual allegations in
the complaint as true” but “is not, however, required to accept legal conclusions either
alleged or inferred . . . .”
Washam v. Stesis
, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50520 9 (E.D. Pa.
2008),
citing Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993);
see also Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly
, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 1968, 1974 (2007) (plaintiff
must state a plausible claim for relief). Thus, although Mr. Berg’s factual allegations
about Senator Obama’s citizenship are ridiculous and patently false, the Court must of
course accept them as true for purposes of this Motion.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 4 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
3
B. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because Plaintiff Has
No Standing To Assert His Claim
“‘[T]he rules of standing, whether as aspects of the Art. III case or controversy
requirement or as reflections of prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of
the courts, are threshold determinants of the propriety of judicial intervention.’”
Penn.
Prison Society v. Cortes
, 508 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir. 2007), quoting Warth v. Seldin
422
U.S. 490-517-18 (1975). In order to establish the “‘irreducible constitutional minimum
of standing’ under Article III of the Constitution” plaintiff must show, first, an “‘injury in
fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’”
Goode
v. City of Philadelphia
, 539 F.3d 311, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17153 *9-10 (3d Cir.
2008),
quoting Lujan v. Defenders of W
ildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
In this case, Mr. Berg fails to allege any concrete, specific injury in fact to
himself. He alleges that if Senator Obama is elected as President and then discovered to
be ineligible, “plaintiff as well as other Democratic Americans will suffer Irreparable
Harm including but not limited to: (1) Functional or Actual, Disenfranchisement of large
numbers of Citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been
deprived of the ability to choose a Nominee of their liking . . . .” Complt. ¶6. It is wellestablished,
however, that a voter’s loss of the ability to vote for a candidate “of their
liking” does not confer standing because the actual injury is not to the voter but to the
candidate. “[A] voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm is abstract
and widely shared or is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.”
Crist v.
Comm’n on Presidential Debates
, 262 F.3d 193, 194 (2d Cir. 2001)(per curiam); see
, to
the same effect,
Becker v. Federal Election Comm’n
, 230 F.3d 381, 389-90 (1st Cir.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 5 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
4
2000)(supporters of a candidate lacked standing to challenge exclusion of that candidate
from Presidential debates);
Gottlieb v. Federal Election Comm’n
, 143 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir.
1998)(supporter of a candidate had no standing to challenge dismissal of agency action
against a competing candidate).
For that reason, a voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a
candidate for President of the United States. In
Jones v. Bush
, 122 F. Supp.2d 713 (N.D.
Tex.),
aff’d w/o opinion
, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000), voters sued to challenge the
qualifications of then-Gov. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to be elected President
and Vice-President of the U.S., respectively, on the grounds that they were both
“inhabitants” of Texas in violation of the requirement of the Twelfth Amendment that the
President and Vice President shall not be “inhabitants” of the same state. The Court
dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The Court found that plaintiffs’ assertion that a violation of the Twelfth
Amendment “will harm them by infringing their right to cast a meaningful vote . . . fails
to satisfy the Article III requirement of a ‘distinct and palpable injury.’ . . . This type of
injury is necessarily abstract and plaintiffs conspicuously fail to demonstrate how they, as
opposed to the general voting population, will feel its effects.” 122 F. Supp.2d at 717,
quoting Warth
, supra
, 422 U.S. at 501. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs lacked
standing based on harm to non-defendant candidates, recognizing that none of the cases
“established standing for voters to vindicate the interests of candidates for public office.”
Id
. “Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a specific and individualized injury
from the pending alleged violation of the Twelfth Amendment and are unable to show
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 6 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
5
personal injury through harm done to non-defendant candidates, the court holds that they
do not have standing under Article III to bring this suit.”
Id
. at 717-18.
More recently, in
Hollander v. McCain
, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H.
2008), a voter sued Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee,
alleging that, because Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, he is not a
“natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President. The
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked
standing. The Court ruled that the plaintiff “does not have standing based on the harm he
would suffer should McCain be elected President despite his alleged lack of eligibility
under Art. II, §1, cl. 4. That harm, ‘standing alone, would adversely affect only the
generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.’” 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
at *12,
quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War
, 418 U.S. 208, 217
(1974).
Like Mr. Berg, the plaintiff in
Hollander
also contended that he would be
disenfranchised if he voted for Senator McCain in the general election and Senator
McCain were subsequently removed due to lack of ineligibility. This theory, the Court
held, “does not establish [plaintiff’s] standing because it does not ‘allege personal injury
fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct,’ . . . but to the conduct of
those—whoever they might turn out to be—responsible for ultimately ousting McCain
from office. Indeed, McCain and the RNC are trying to achieve the opposite.”
Id
. at *18,
quoting Allen v. Wright
, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). The court concluded that: “This is not
to demean the sincerity of Hollander’s challenge to McCain’s eligibility for the
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 7 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
6
presidency; . . . What is settled, however, is that an individual voter like Hollander lacks
standing to raise that challenge in the federal courts.”
Id
. at *21.
Like the plaintiffs in
Jones and Hollander
, Mr. Berg manifestly lacks standing to
assert his claim regarding the eligibility of Senator Obama to serve as President.
Accordingly, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over that claim.
C. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
Granted
In any event, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because it fails to establish a cause of action. Mr. Berg cites the Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, Cmplt. ¶8, but that Act “has only a procedural effect. Although it
enlarges the range of remedies available in federal courts, it does not create subject
matter jurisdiction. Thus, a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction . . . .”
Mack Trucks, Inc., v. Int’l Union, UAW
, 856 F.2d 579, 583 (3d Cir. 1988). Mr. Berg also
claims that the case “presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under
Article II of the Constitution.” Cmplt. ¶7. There is no federal cause of action under or
created by Article II of the Constitution, however.
See, e.g., Catholic Charities CYO v.
Chertoff
, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62732 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
For these reasons, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 8 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
7
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, defendants Democratic National Committee and
Senator Obama’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure
to state a claim should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.
John P. Lavelle, Jr.
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
Of Counsel:
Joseph E. Sandler
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
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
RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Senator Barack Obama and the
Democratic National Committee
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 9 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Defendant
Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s Motion to
Dismiss
was served by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Plaintiff
Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr.
John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 10 of 11
DMEAST #10118497 v3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :
:
Defendants :
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this ______ day of _______________, 2008, upon consideration of
Defendant Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s
Motion to Dismiss, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.
J.
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 12 Filed 09/24/2008 Page 11 of 11
Citizen WElls 
Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama motion to dismiss, U.S. Supreme Court, FEC v. Akins, voter standing, James Akins, Related Lawsuits, subject matter jurisdiction, Jeff Schreiber commentary
On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, Obama and the DNC filed a motion to dismiss the Philip J Berg lawsuit that states Obama is not qualified to be president. Legal issues aside, in my opinion this is an admission that Obama is not qualified and is still a citizen of kenya and or Indonesia. Jeff Schreiber, a law student, legal writer and blog owner, has written his analysis of the lawsuit and motion to dismiss by Obama. here are some exerpts:
“Unlike the way in which the defense supported the 12(b)(6) defense, citing the particularities and treatment of the Declaratory Judgment Act by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the lack of standing defense did not surprise me in the least. In two recent posts on this matter, the first one eight and the other 12 days ago, I focused on the standing issue–specifically noting the disposition of the New Hampshire case, Hollander v. McCain, quoted in today’s motion–and pressed Berg on the issue.
I told him, just as I explained in these pages, that above everything else he needed to show an INJURY IN FACT. I mentioned that simply being a taxpayer, or a voter for that matter, has not proven to be enough to show injury or prove standing. In today’s motion, the defense stated that Berg failed to allege any “concrete, specific injury in fact to himself,” maintaining that voter disenfranchisement alone is not enough, that “a voter’s loss of the ability to vote for a candidate ‘of their liking’ does not confer standing because the actual injury is not to the voter but to the candidate.”
The Hon. William Alsup in the Northern District of California expressed similar feelings when he granted John McCain’s Motion to Dismiss–filed on similar grounds–on September 16 in Robinson v. Bowen, the citizenship-related action filed against the Arizona senator by the chairman of California’s American Independent Party, stating that even with plaintiff Markham Robinson’s status as party chairman and chances of becoming an elector, he still had “no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter.”
“Furthermore, even though filing so close to deadline is a common and accepted practice, Berg was steadfast in his belief that the longer the senator fails and refuses to produce the documentation sought in the Motion for Expedited Discovery filed on September 9, the more it looks like his allegations are correct, and he felt as though the timing of today’s motion was another attempt at obfuscation.
“Note, Jeff, that they waited until just before the deadline to file this, note that they’re just trying to prolong it and not deal with the issue,” he said. “It’s funny that on a day that McCain has stated that he’s suspending his campaign and wants the upcoming debate canceled so America can talk about the economic crisis, Obama says that he can campaign and talk it out at the same time, yet how come he’s not talking about his birth certificate? How come he’s hiding behind technical rules?”
“If you’re not qualified to be there,” Berg said, “get off the stage at this point in the game. Every day that goes by, every step that he takes to avoid showing those documents, which I don’t believe exist, indicates to me that he’s not natural-born.””
Read more here:
http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/obama-dnc-file-motion-to-dismiss-in.html
“Truth or fantasy of Berg’s allegations aside, as I’ve stated before, I believe that eligibility goes beyond citizenship, that our nation’s founders wanted to ensure that the man–or woman, as it were–leading our country was boundlessly loyal to Her, and that they enshrined that hope in the fifth clause of Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution. I touched upon that intent almost a month ago after Berg’s suit was filed:
It was important to those courageous men that the future leaders of their fledgling nation understand what it means to be an American. Every clause in that document is there for a reason, each a lesson learned from fresh wounds of tyranny gone but not forgotten, and the framers made a point to require that, at the very least, a potential president must have been a citizen of the United States “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Unfettered, undivided devotion and loyalty to America was of the utmost concern; simply put, only those who fought and bled for Her independence, or at the very least understood the meaning behind, need for and potential of this great experiment could be trusted with its charge.
For that reason, completely apart from my obvious ideological leanings and political bias, it seemed counterintuitive to me that regardless of the slippery slope argument, a voter in our representative republic could not stand up and question the qualifications of those who wish to lead our nation as president and Commander-in-Chief. For me, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is or to which party he or she belongs — what kind of protection are we providing for the intent of our founders if we refuse to even consider such an action on its merits, or lack thereof, instead overlooking an inquiry into a matter of such great importance based upon procedural limitations which, by their very nature, ebb and flow over time?”
“A 1998 decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, FEC v. Akins, did allow for voter standing because the injury of which James Akins and the other respondents complained–the inability to obtain information, in this case as to the status of a political action committee–was concrete enough that widely-shared harm did not preclude standing. As a campaign finance-related action, FEC v. Akins may be a far cry from the nature of the claims set forth by Berg and the others, but it shows that the Court is willing to broaden the standard for injury in fact when the injury sustained by a mere voter either (1) falls within the “zone of interests” to be protected or regulated by a particular statute, or (2) is indicative of a large number of individuals who suffer the same injury. This, for me, seems to better align with the hopes of those who, wary of the King, wanted to secure power as close to the people as possible, and certainly seems to comport with the nature of the injury in the matters at hand.”
Read more here:
http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/so-who-does-have-standing-anyway.html
Make sure to visit Jeff Schreiber’s site often.
8 Comments
Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Crime, Criminal Complaint, democratic convention, Democrats, DNC, doublespeak, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, History, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters
Tagged FEC v. Akins, James Akins, Jeff Schreiber commentary, Obama motion to dismiss, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Related Lawsuits, subject matter jurisdiction, U.S. Supreme Court, voter standing