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 

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

Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or

Resolution on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s

Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED

Defendants Response to Plaintiff=s Motion is to be filed and served upon Plaintiff on or

before October _____, 2008 and the Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution will be set for

October ______, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________

Hon. R. Barclay Surrick

United States District Court Judge

 For the Eastern District of PA
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 :

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN EXPEDITED RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] and

respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion requesting an

Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment against Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and the

Democratic National Committee [hereinafter “DNC”] on the following grounds:

1. In order to be eligible and qualified to run for and hold the Office of the

President of the United States, you must be a “natural born” citizen. United States

Constitution, Article II, Section I.

2. There are many questions into the citizenship status of Obama. Obama

claims he was born in two [2] separate hospitals in Hawaii. Plaintiff has

discovered not only was Obama born in Kenya, he became a “natural” citizen of
Indonesia upon his step-father, Lolo Soetoro signing a legal governmental birth

acknowledgement “acknowledging” Obama as his son and/or adopting Obama.

At this time, Obama’s name was changed and he became Barry Soetoro, an

Indonesian citizen.

3. Obama and the DNC have been requested for proof of Obama’s

citizenship status, which has been refused.

4. Plaintiff filed this action on August 21, 2008 requesting Declaratory and

Injunctive Relief, as Obama does not meet the qualifications or eligibility to run

for and/or serve as the President of the United States.

5. On or about September 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited

Discovery, Extensive Discovery and Depositions of Obama and Howard Dean,

Chairman of the DNC and the appointment of a Special Master. Defendants

never responded to or opposed said Motion. This Motion is still pending.

6. On September 15, 2008, Defendants, Obama and the DNC, were served

with discovery by Plaintiff for Requests for Admissions and Requests for

Production of Documents. Defendants’ responses were due within thirty [30]

days. 

7. Defendants, Obama and the DNC did not Answer the Complaint, failed to

turn over proof of Obama’s citizenship status and instead filed a Motion to

Dismiss on September 24, 2008. Defendants claimed Plaintiff did not have

standing to bring this action and failed to state a claim which relief could be

granted. 
8. This Honorable Court requested Plaintiff to file any Responses in

Opposition to Defendants Motion within five [5] days, that being on or before

September 29, 2008 and Plaintiff complied by filing a Response in Opposition to

Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

9. On or about Monday, October 6, 2008, Defendants Obama and the DNC’s

Attorney called Plaintiff in order to meet and confer regarding discovery pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f). Defendants Attorney was

requesting Plaintiff to agree to stay discovery pending a decision on their Motion

to Dismiss. Plaintiff declined as Obama’s citizenship status is of National

security as he is running for President of the United States. 

10. In the afternoon of October 6, 2008, Defendants, Obama and DNC, filed a

Motion for Protective Order staying all discovery pending the Court’s decision on

their Motion to Dismiss. In their Motion Defendants acknowledged receipt of the

Requests for Admissions.

11. On or about October 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition to

Defendants Motion for Protective Order.

12. Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding

Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to

litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants

have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead

of simply solving the matters.

13. Defendants have failed to timely Answer Plaintiff’s Requests for

Admissions, which were served on September 15, 2008 and Defendants Answers
were due thirty [30] days thereafter. Therefore, these matters are automatically

deemed “admitted” in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a).

McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000), Goodman

v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S.

1038, 97 S. Ct. 732 (1977); Siss v. County of Passaic, 75 F. Supp. 2d 325, 331

(D.N.J. 1999). 

14. No order staying discovery has been entered in this forum. Because the

proceedings in this matter have not been stayed, and because the Defendants,

Obama and DNC, failed to timely Answer Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions,

they have been deemed “admitted” in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 36(a).

15. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment concurrently with this

Motion for an Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution.

16. Defendants have failed to timely answer requests for Admissions; they have

been deemed admitted in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a),

McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000), Goodman v.

Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S.

1038, 97 S. Ct. 732 (1977); Siss v. County of Passaic, 75 F. Supp. 2d 325, 331

(D.N.J. 1999). Therefore, there are absolutely no genuine issue of material facts

which exist regarding Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff is

entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

17. Failure to respond to properly served admissions permits the entry of

summary judgment when the facts deemed admitted are dispositive. See
Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176 (3d

Cir. 1990) (deemed admissions sufficient to support summary judgment); Freed

v. Plastic Packaging Materials, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 550, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1975)

18. The Presidential Election is November 4, 2008. The issues are of National

Importance. If Obama is not eligible to run for and/or serve as United States

President allowing Obama to continue his campaign and not removing him from

the ballot is against Public Policy.

19. Plaintiff as well as all other Democratic United States citizens will be

deprived their right to cast their vote for an eligible Democratic Presidential

Nominee and if elected, who can serve as President of the United States.

20. If the Motion is not heard and decided immediately, there will not be any

time left in order to replace Obama on the Presidential ballot with an eligible

Democratic Presidential candidate.

21. If Obama is elected as President of the United States and allowed to serve

as the United States President, we will have a Constitutional crisis. If this is

allowed, it will change the United States Constitution without proper due process

of law and it will set precedence which likely will cause further variances from

the United States Constitution without proper due process of law. Plaintiff and all

citizens of the United States will no longer be afforded the protections guaranteed

by the United States Constitution. 

22. Defendants will not be prejudiced by an Expedited Ruling; however,

Plaintiff and the citizens of the United States will be severely damaged, if this

matter is not resolved immediately.
23. It is in the best interest of the parties and the efficient administration of justice

to learn this Court's view of Plaintiff’s Motions as soon as possible. 

24. For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff requests Defendants response

time be shortened to two (2) days and an Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or

Resolution within three (3) days.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court

grant an expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution on Plaintiff=s Motion for Summary

Judgment. Plaintiff further requests Defendants Response time be shortened to two (2)

days and an Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution to Plaintiff=s Motions within

three (3) days.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 22, 2008

 s/ Philip J. Berg 

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 Motion Requesting an

Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment was served upon Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”]

and The Democratic National Committee [hereinafter “DNC”] via electronic filing on the

ECF System, this 22 day of October 2008 upon the following: nd

John P. Lavelle, Jr.

Attorney I.D. PA 54279

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &00

INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8603

(215) 864-9125 (Fax)

lavellej@ballardspahr.com

Joseph E. Sandler

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

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
Benjamin A. Streeter, III, Esquire

The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

999 E. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463 In pro se

bstreeter@fec.gov

 /s Philip J. Berg 

_____________________________

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

Attorney for Plaintiff

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

(610) 825-3134