Tag Archives: 2008 ruling

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Judge Surrick dismissed, October 24, 2008 ruling, Philadelphia Daily News

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:

http://www.americasright.com/

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:
  1. Secretary of State of each state.
  2. Election Board Officials.
  3. Electors.
  4. Governors.
  5. 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:

http://obamaimpeachment.org