UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :

Plaintiff :

vs. :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :

Defendants :

ORDER

ON 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)

THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.

Barclay Surrick on Defendant’s Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National

Committee’s Motion to Dismiss. Having reviewed the Motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition

to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6) is DENIED. It is further ORDER of this Court that the following discovery is

to be turned over to Plaintiff within three (3) days:

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version)

Birth Certificate; and

2. A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;

3. A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: September ______, 2008

______________________________

Hon. R. Barclay Surrick

United States District Court Judge

For the Eastern District of PA

BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 13

Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :

Plaintiff :

vs. :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :

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;

• 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

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

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

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

“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,

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)

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, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

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

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

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.

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

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

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 ) Amendment have been violated th

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

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.

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).

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.

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”.

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

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.

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

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 $500 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 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.

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 ($500) Million Dollars in Campaign Funds, is

based on a fraudulent scheme if Obama is unable to prove his “natural born” citizenship

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 ($500) 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).

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.”

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)”

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…….”

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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, 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.”

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.“

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 ) Amendment of the United States Constitution th

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

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;

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

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 2008 upon the following: th

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

The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

999 E. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463 In pro se