Did you know what a lawsuit was filed to stop the election?

Attorney Phil Berg tried to make a power move before the election to stop the Election between Obama and McCain. U.S. Supreme Court Denied Phil Berg Request on Monday, the Day Before the Election November 3th, 2008 .

This attorney really leaves me with the ideal that he has nothing but time on his hand, or he simply has started these lawsuits strictly for fame and MONEY! After seeing his half ass attempt on research of citizenship in the United States I know with out a shadow of doubt that this attorney can not be this stupid! He continues to be hell bent on proving that Obama was not born in United States.

The Hon. R. Barclay Surrick researched the grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had filed and he determined that they lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.


Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.