Barack Obama is still hiding his Indonesian citizenship behind legal
maneuvering and legalese. Today, Monday October 20, 2008, Obama filed another motion. The motion today was to dismiss Philip J Berg’s
amended complaint. Jeff Schreiber reports the following:
“Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama, DNC File Motion to Dismiss Berg’s First Amended Complaint
Just a few minutes ago, attorneys for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, a motion for leave for which was filed by Philip Berg on Monday, October 6.
Generally, an amended complaint cannot simply be filed by an attorney — the attorney must file a motion with the court, called a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, essentially asking that the court permit the amended complaint to be filed. That motion, the October 6 motion, is one of more than ten pending pleadings and still has not been addressed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick.
I am just now taking a look at it, but from a quick glance it appears as though Obama and the DNC are moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the same grounds for which they moved to dismiss the original complaint — that Berg lacks standing and fails to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On September 24, 2008, Defendants Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Senator Barack Obama filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint filed in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, together with a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”). Assuming that no leave to amend is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading,1 the First Amended Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed, on the same grounds. No amendment to the Complaint can possibly cure its fundamental defects. Not only are the allegations patently false, but plaintiff lacks standing and there is no federal cause of action for enforcement of Article II of the Constitution. Nor has plaintiff set forth, i n the Amended Complaint, any other viable federal cause of action.”
Read more here:
Support Philip J Berg in upholding the Constitution: