UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP
J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :
Plaintiff :
vs. :
CIVIL
ACTION NO. 08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :
BARRY
SOETORO, a/k/a :
BARRY
OBAMA, a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BARACK
DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY
DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE,
THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION
COMMISSION AND :
DOES
1-50 INCLUSIVE, :
Defendants :
ORDER
AND NOW this ______day of October, 2008, upon consideration of Defendants,
Barack
H. Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion for a Protective
Order
and Stay Pending the Decision on Defendants Dispositive Motion and Plaintiff’s
Response
in Opposition thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED and DECREED as follows:
1.
Defendants Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery
pending
the Court’s Decision on Defendants dispositive Motion is
DENIED;
2.
Defendants are hereby ORDERED to Answer Plaintiff’s
Discovery
Requests by way of Admissions and Request for
Production
of Documents by October 15, 2008.
IT IS SO ORDERED
BY THE COURT:
R.
Barclay Surrick, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP
J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :
Plaintiff :
vs. :
CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :
BARRY
SOETORO, a/k/a :
BARRY
OBAMA, a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BARACK
DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY
DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE,
THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION
COMMISSION AND :
DOES
1-50 INCLUSIVE, :
Defendants :
ORDER
AND NOW this ______day of October, 2008, upon consideration of Defendants,
Barack
H. Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion for a Protective
Order
and Stay pending the Decision on Defendants Dispositive Motion and Plaintiff’s
Response
in Opposition thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED and DECREED as follows:
1.
Defendants Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery pending
the
Court’s Decision on Defendants dispositive Motion is DENIED
in
part and GRANTED in part;
2.
Pending the Decision on the Defendants, Barack H. Obama and the
Democratic
National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss, discovery is
stayed
except for the following:
Defendants,
Barack H. Obama and the Democratic National Committee are
ORDERED to turn over the following documents by October 15, 2008:
1. A
certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) birth
certificate;
2.
Certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates of
Obama
in the names referred to in the caption of this lawsuit;
3. A
certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
4. A
certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of
majority;
5.
Certified copies of Obama’s Application and Admission forms for
Occidental
College, Columbia University and Harvard Law
School;
and
6.
Certified copies of any Court Orders or legal documents changing
Obama’s
name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.
Defendant,
Barack Hussein Obama is ORDERED to serve upon Plaintiff
Answers
to the following Request for Admissions by October 15, 2008:
Admissions, Request No. 1. Admit you were born in Kenya.
Admissions, Request No. 2. Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 3. Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State
of
Hawaii.
Admissions, Request No. 4. Admit your name was legally changed to Barry
Soetoro
and citizenship status was changed to
“natural
citizen” of Indonesia.
Admissions, Request No. 5. Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a
citizen
of Indonesia.
Admissions, Request No. 6. Admit Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
Signed
a Government “Acknowledgement” form
legally
acknowledging you as his son.
Admissions, Request No. 7. Admit you are an Indonesian citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 8. Admit you are currently not a “natural born”
United
States
citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 9. Admit you are not eligible to serve as the President
of the
United States pursuant to Article II, Section I
of the
United States Constitution.
Admission, Request No. 10. Admit you are unable to prove your citizenship
status.
Defendant,
the Democratic National Committee is ORDERED to serve upon
Plaintiff
Answers to the following Request for Admissions by October 15, 2008:
Admissions, Request No. 1. Admit you have not verified Barrack Hussein
Obama’s
eligibility to serve as President of the
United
States.
Admissions, Request No. 2. Admit Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
Admissions, Request No. 3. Admit Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status
was
changed to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia
when
his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, M.A. legally
“acknowledged”
Obama as his son.
Admissions, Request No. 4. Admit Barack Hussein Obama’s name was legally
changed
to Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 5. Admit Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural
born”
United States citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 6: Admit you have not inquired into Barrack Hussein
Obama’s
citizenship status.
Admissions, Request No. 7. Admit the United States Constitution does not allow
for a
Person to hold the Office of President of the
United
States unless that person is a “natural born”
United
States citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 8. Admit you collected donations on behalf of Barack
Hussein
Obama for his Presidential campaign.
Admissions, Request No. 9. Admit the DNC has promised Plaintiff and all
American
citizens that the DNC will ensure Open
and
Honest Government and uphold the United
States
Constitution to protect the United States
citizens.
Admissions, Request No. 10. Admit Barack Hussein Obama is not a legal citizen
of the
United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED
BY THE COURT:
R.
Barclay Surrick, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP
J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :
Plaintiff :
:
vs. :
CIVIL
ACTION NO. 08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :
BARRY
SOETORO, a/k/a :
BARRY
OBAMA, a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BARACK
DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY
DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE,
THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION
COMMISSION AND :
DOES
1-50 INCLUSIVE, :
Defendants :
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS BARACK H. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITVE MOTION
Plaintiff,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within Response
in
Opposition to Defendants, Barack H. Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and the
Democratic
National Committee [hereinafter “DNC’] Motion for Protective Order
Staying
Discovery Pending Decision on Defendants Dispositive Motion on the following
grounds:
1.
Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss does not entitle them to a Protective
Order
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) [hereinafter F.R.C.P. 26(c];
2.
Defendants have failed to show “good cause” and are therefore not entitled
to
a
protective order under F.R.C.P. 26(c);
3.
Defendants have not pointed to any legitimate privacy concerns. Defendants
have
failed to point out any substantiated specific examples demonstrating that
disclosure
will
cause a defined and serious injury;
4.
Plaintiff does not seek access to the requested information for any improper
purpose;
5.
Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment
will
result from the requested documents;
6. The
requested information is extremely important for public safety; and
“Good
Cause” requires a particular need for the protection sought;
7. The
sharing of information will promote fairness and efficiency so as not to
delay
this action;
8.
Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for
President
of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter
of
significant
public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The Democratic
National
Committee is a public entity and is also subject to public scrutiny; and
9. The
public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom
of
Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 is a strong factor in favor of not
granting a protective
order which would prevent disclosure of such information.
For the
above aforementioned reason’s Plaintiff respectfully requests the
Defendants,
Obama and the DNC’s Motion for Protective Order pending Decision on
Defendants
Dispositive Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Dated: October 9, 2008
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in Pro Se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2351
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP
J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :
Plaintiff :
:
vs. :
CIVIL
ACTION NO. 08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :
BARRY
SOETORO, a/k/a :
BARRY
OBAMA, a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BARACK
DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY
DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE,
THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION
COMMISSION AND :
DOES
1-50 INCLUSIVE, :
Defendants :
PLAINTIFF, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE’S,
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF HIS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
BARACK H. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING
DECISION ON DISPOSITVE MOTION
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
There
are unanswered questions regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for
President
of the United States. It has not been shown that Obama meets the requirement
under
the United States Constitution Section I, Article II, that he be a “natural
born”
citizen.
It appears that from extensive investigation that Obama is not even a
“naturalized”
citizen and is actually a citizen of Indonesia, thus he is ineligible to serve
as
the
United States President.
Through
extensive investigation Plaintiff learned Obama was born at Coast
Hospital
in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenya
citizen
and Obama’s mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to register Obama’s
birth
in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen. The laws on the books
at the
time of
Obama’s birth required the U.S. citizen parent to have resided in the Untied
States
for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14).
Obama’s
mother
was only eighteen (18) years old when Obama was born in Kenya. Nationality
Act of
1940, revised June 1952, 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
response to all the requests for Obama to produce proof of his citizenship,
Obama
allowed the Daily Kos to post on their website www.dailykos.com.
an image of a
Certification
of Live Birth with Obama’s name on it purporting to be Obama’s birth
certificate.
This same image was also placed on Obama’s website,
http://fightthesmears.com and on another website located at http://factcheck.org.
The
image
placed on these websites is of a Hawaiian document which is provided for
children’s
births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births abroad, which have
been
registered
in Hawaii, whether the citizenship status was “natural born” or
“naturalized.”
Thus,
the image did not prove Obama’s citizenship status as a “natural born”
United
States
Citizen. The images placed on these three (3) websites were later discovered by
Independent
Graphic Specialists to be altered and forged images.
Plaintiff
filed suit on August 21, 2008 seeking proof of Obama’s citizenship
Status.
Defendants, Obama and the DNC’s, Answers were due on or before September
24,
2008.
After
Plaintiff filed suit, it was discovered through investigation that Obama’s
mother
married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro, who either signed a government
form
legally “acknowledging” Obama as his son or “adopted” Obama, either of
which
changed
Obama’s status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Obama was registered
in
school
as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed
as
Lolo
Soetoro, M.A. There was no other way for Obama to have attended school in
Jakarta,
Indonesia as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. Indonesia
did not
allow foreign students to attend their public schools and any time a child was
registered
for a public school, his or her name and citizenship status were verified
through
the Indonesian Government.
Plaintiff
filed a Motion on September 9, 2008 for Expedited Discovery, Extensive
Discovery,
Deposition of Obama and Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman and a request for
the
appointment of a Special Master to be present during the Depositions. Defendants
failed
to respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, which is still pending before this
Honorable
Court.
On
September 15, 2008, Plaintiff served Discovery by way of Request for
Admissions
and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants Obama and the
DNC.
Instead
of filing an Answer, Defendants, Obama and the DNC filed a Motion to
Dismiss
pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff did not have
standing
and failure to state a claim which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed his
Opposition
and Brief to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss on September 29, 2008.
Plaintiff
also filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint and attached
his
First Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A” on October 6, 2008, document number
fourteen
(14) on the docket.
On the
afternoon of October 6, 2008, Plaintiff received a call from John P.
Lavelle,
Jr., counsel for the DNC and Obama. Mr. Lavelle requested a Stay of Discovery
pending
this Honorable Court’s decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss currently
pending.
Plaintiff declined his request. Mr. Lavelle stated he would be filing a Motion
for a
Protective Order Staying Discovery pending a decision on the Defendants Motion
to
Dismiss.
Thereafter, Plaintiff was served via the ECF electronic filing system with
Defendants
Motion for a Protective Order that was filed with this Court as document
number
fifteen (15).
It is
imperative to immediately obtain the proper documentation to verify and
confirm
Defendant Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof, to serve as President of the
United
States.
If Obama is found to be ineligible to serve as President of the United States,
it is
imperative
to have his name removed from the ballot and remove his nomination
urgently
to afford Plaintiff and the citizens of the United States to have a properly
vetted
and
qualified Democratic candidate for which to cast their votes.
Plaintiff
and Citizens of the United States should never be left with questions
regarding
the eligibility or ineligibility of any Presidential candidate. If these issues
are
not
dealt with urgently we are at grave risk of a United States Constitutional
Crisis.
Defendants
will not be prejudiced if Ordered to comply with the discovery.
Moreover,
if Obama can prove he is currently a U.S. “natural born” citizen and that he
is
in fact
eligible to serve as President of the United States then Obama and the other
Defendants
would benefit as they would be able to put the citizenship issues to rest.
B. A PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A GENERAL
SITUATION THAT BY ITSELF WOULD WARRANT A STAY OF
DISCOVERY
Defendants’
pending Motion to Dismiss does not entitle them to a Protective
Order
under F.R.C.P. 26(c). Keystone Coke Co. v. Pasquale, No. 97-6074, 1999 U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS 170 (E.D. Pa. Jan 7, 1999); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Lehigh Valley v.
Grol, No. 92-7061, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3734, at *6 (E.D. Pa Mar 9,
1993); People
With Aids Health Group v. Burroughs Wellcome Co.,
1991 WL 221179 at *1 1991 WL
221179
(D.D.C. 1991). Defendants contend that discovery should be stopped because
they
have filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief
can
be
Granted pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), and baldly asserts that this suit will be
dismissed
on the ground that Plaintiff does not have standing pursuant to F.R.C.P.
12(b)(1)
to question the qualifications of the Democratic candidate for President of the
United
States. It is well established that a Court should not automatically stay
discovery
when
there is a pending motion to dismiss. Keystone Coke Co. v. Pasquale, No. 97-6074,
1999
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170 (E.D. Pa. Jan 7, 1999); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Lehigh
Valley v. Grol, No. 92-7061, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3734, at *6 (E.D. Pa Mar 9,
1993);
People With Aids Health Group v. Burroughs Wellcome Co.,
1991 WL 221179 at *1
1991 WL
221179 (D.D.C. 1991). Further, it will be proven that Plaintiff clearly has
standing
under the statutes enumerated in Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendant’s
Motion
to Dismiss incorporated by reference herein. Defendants’ bald unsubstantiated
assertions
do not justify entry of a protective order. See, .People With Aids Health Group
v. Burroughs Wellcome Co., 1991 WL 221179 at *1 1991 WL 221179 (D.D.C. 1991),
which
states in pertinent part,
“defendant
makes a bald assertion that its motion to dismiss will be
granted.
These are mere assertions that have not been substantiated by
defendant.
However, ‘bare assertions that discovery will be unduly
burdensome
or that it should be stayed pending dispositive motions that
will
probably be sustained, are insufficient to justify the entry of an order
staying
discovery generally’”, Id., citing [ ].
Therefore,
Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending
Decision
on Dispositive Motion should be denied.
C. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW “GOOD CAUSE” AND ARE
THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER
UNDER F.R.C.P. 26(c).
This
Court should not grant a stay on discovery materials because Defendants
have
not shown “good cause” so as to warrant a protective order. The Federal
Rules of
Civil
Procedure, Rule 26(c), requires that a party seeking a protective order over
discovery
materials must demonstrate that "good cause" exists for the protection
of that
material.
Shingara
v. Skiles, 420
F.2d 301, 305 (3d Cir. 2005), affirmed by, Shingara v.
Skiles, 274 Fed. Appx. 164, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8411 (3d Cir. 2008); Glenmede
Trust
Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d at 483 (3d Cir.1995); Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg,
23
F.3d
772 (3d Cir. 1994).
The
Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “good cause” exists “when it
is
specifically
demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury”
based
on the following seven-factor test (hereinafter the “Pansy
test”). Id.
1)
Whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
2)
Whether the information is sought for a legitimate purpose or for an
improper
purpose;
3)
Whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment;
4)
Whether confidentiality is sought over information important to public
health
and safety;
5)
Whether sharing information among the litigants will promote fairness
and
efficiency;
6)
Whether a party who would benefit from the order of confidentiality is a
public
entity or official; and
7)
Whether the case involves issues important to the public.
Shingara, at 306; Glenmede Trust Co., at 483; and Pansy,
23 F.3d at 786. A protective
order
is not warranted because Defendants have failed to show “good cause”, any
“clearly
defined and serious injury”, and there is no demonstration that any of the
above
factors
favor issuance of a protective order.
Defendants
have not demonstrated that the first factor of the Pansy
test applies
because
they fail to point to any legitimate privacy concern. Obama waived any privacy
and/or
confidentiality concern with regard to his birth certificate when he allowed a
document
purporting to be “his” Certification of Live birth on the internet at three
(3)
different
websites. Obama also wrote in his book “Dreams from my father” about his
Indonesian
life and therefore waived any privacy and/or confidentiality issues with
regard
to his citizenship status in Indonesia. In addition, in interviews with
newspapers
and
news stations, Obama openly talked about his trip to Pakistan, India and
Indonesia,
and
waived any privacy and/or confidentiality concern with respect to that trip.
Therefore,
Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the first factor of the Pansy test
favors
a protective order.
Plaintiff
does not seek access to the requested information for any improper
purpose,
but rather to protect Plaintiff and the citizens of the United States.
Therefore,
the
application of the second factor in the Pansy test does not warrant a protective order.
Defendants
do not allege that disclosure of the requested information will cause
any
embarrassment. Therefore, the application of the third factor in the Pansy
test does
not
warrant a protective order.
Plaintiff
seeks information that is extremely important to public safety. Allowing
Obama
to hide his citizenship status is extremely detrimental to public safety. If
Obama
is not
able to prove he is currently a “natural born” citizen and he is elected as
the
President
of the United States, he is violating our United States Constitution and we are
at
serious risk of a Constitutional Crisis. Furthermore, if Obama is sworn into the
United
States
Office of the Presidency, neither Plaintiff nor the general public will have the
right
to
bring suit for redress as a result of all the immunities the President of the
United States
carries,
thus Plaintiff and all the general public will be further harmed as they will be
forced
to live with the grave consequences. Therefore, the fourth factor in the Pansy
test
strongly
weighs in favor of not issuing the protective order.
Proving
Obama’s citizenship status prior to the Presidential elections, which is
less
than a month away, is imperative. Disclosing information relating to Obama’s
citizenship
status will promote fairness and efficiency in this action. Therefore, the fifth
factor
in Pansy
test clearly
weighs in favor of not issuing the protective order.
The
last two factors in the Pansy test clearly weigh against the protective order.
The
parties benefiting from the protective order are Barack Obama, who is a public
official
as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the
United
States, and the Democratic National Committee, which is a public entity. And
this
case certainly “involves issues important to the public.” The public
interest in access
to the
requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5
U.S.C. § 552 is
a
strong
factor in favor of not granting a protective order which would prevent
disclosure
of such
information. (See Pansy, where the Court stated that "where it is likely that
information
is accessible under a relevant freedom of information law, a strong
presumption
exists against granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality.") Id.
at
791.
D. CONCLUSION
Defendants’
pending motion to dismiss does not entitle them to a protective order
under
F.R.C.P. 26(c) and Defendants have failed to make a showing of good cause for
the
requested protective order. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the Defendants’
Motion
for a
Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive Motion be
denied.
In the
Alternative, Plaintiff requests an Order granting Defendants Motion for a
Protective
Order in Part and Denying Defendants Motion for a Protective Order in part
and
Order the Defendants to turn over the following documents and Answer the
following
Admissions by October 15, 2008:
1. A
certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) birth
certificate;
2.
Certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates of
Obama
in the names referred to in the caption of this lawsuit;
3. A
certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
4. A
certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of
majority;
5.
Certified copies of Obama’s Application and Admission forms for
Occidental
College, Columbia University and Harvard Law
School;
and
6.
Certified copies of any Court Orders or legal documents changing
Obama’s
name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.
Plaintiff
requests the Court to Order Obama to Serve upon Plaintiff Answers to
the
following Admissions by October 15, 2008:
Admissions, Request No. 1. Admit you were born in Kenya.
Admissions, Request No. 2. Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 3. Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State
of
Hawaii.
Admissions, Request No. 4. Admit your name was legally changed to Barry
Soetoro
and citizenship status was changed to
“natural”
citizen of Indonesia.
Admissions, Request No. 5. Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a
citizen
of Indonesia.
Admissions, Request No. 6. Admit Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
Signed
a Government “Acknowledgement” form
legally
acknowledging you as his son.
Admissions, Request No. 7. Admit you are an Indonesian citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 8. Admit you are currently not a “natural born”
United
States
citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 9. Admit you are not eligible to serve as the President
of the
United States pursuant to Article II, Section I
of the
United States Constitution.
Admission, Request No. 10. Admit you are unable to prove your citizenship
status.
Plaintiff
requests the Court to Order the DNC to Serve upon Plaintiff Answers to
the
following Admissions by October 15, 2008:
Admissions, Request No. 1. Admit you have not verified Barrack Hussein
Obama’s
eligibility to serve as President of the
United
States.
Admissions, Request No. 2. Admit Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
Admissions, Request No. 3. Admit Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status
was
changed to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia
when
his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, M.A. legally
“acknowledged”
Obama as his son.
Admissions, Request No. 4. Admit Barack Hussein Obama’s name was legally
changed
to Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 5. Admit Barrack Hussein Obama is not currently
a
“natural born” United States citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 6: Admit you have not inquired into Barrack Hussein
Obama’s
citizenship status.
Admissions, Request No. 7. Admit the United States Constitution does not allow
for a
Person to hold the office of President of the
United
States unless that person is a “natural born”
United
States citizen.
Admissions, Request No. 8. Admit you collected donations on behalf of Barack
Hussein
Obama for his Presidential campaign.
Admissions, Request No. 9. Admit the DNC has promised Plaintiff and all
American
citizens that the DNC will ensure Open
and
Honest Government and uphold the United
States
Constitution to protect the United States
citizens..
Admissions, Request No. 10. Admit Barack Hussein Obama is not a legal citizen
of the
United States.
Plaintiff
has prepared two (2) separate “Proposed” Orders, one representing the
Denial
of Defendants Motion for Protective Order pending decision of dispositive
Motion
and in the alternative, a separate “proposed” order Granting in part and
denying
in part
Ordering Defendants to turn over specific documents and Answer specific
Requests
for Admissions as stated above.
Respectfully
submitted,
s/
Philip J. Berg
Dated:
October 9, 2008
Philip
J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney
in Pro
Se
555
Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette
Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification
No. 09867
(610)
825-3134
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Response and Brief in
Opposition
to Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National
Committee’s
Motion for a Protective Order Staying Discovery pending Decision on
Defendants
Motion to Dismiss was served via electronic filing on the ECF System, this
9 day
of October 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
Served
via regular mail postage fully prepaid
s/
Philip J. Berg
Dated:
October 9, 2008
Philip
J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney
in pro se