What's Your Evidence?

Berg v. Obama Citizen Lawsuit: Status & Summary

This blog is in the process of evaluating the allegations set forth in the complaint brought by Mr. Philip Berg against Senator Obama, alleging that he is not qualified to serve as President, on multiple different grounds.

The case was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by Mr. Philip Berg.  Mr. Berg has published a website, www.obamacrimes.com, with copies of the pleadings and some materials related to the case. Mr. Berg's lawsuit was dismissed by the District Court, on October 24, 2008. See Memorandum and Order. However, Berg is appealing this decision to both the Third Circuit (PACER/registration required) and the Supreme Court (public website)

For status of the various appeals, see here.

1/23 Update: New Page ~ SCOTUS & "Natural Born Citizen":  A compendium of U.S. Supreme Court cases using the term "natural born citizen" in any context) - in light of claims that "native-born" citizenship or "born a US citizen" per the 14th Amendment means something different than "natural born" citizenship per Article II. 

1/5 Update: New Page ~ The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause:  A compendium of cases and legal scholarship on meaning of "natural born citizenship" - in light of claims that a native-born US citizen who has "dual citizenship" at birth does not qualify as a "natural born" citizen under Article II.

---

So far, we have considered the following claims set forth in Mr. Berg's pleadings:

BIRTH CERTIFICATE / FORGERY CLAIMS

• Was Obama's COLB Forged? Did Obama Post a Forged COLB on his Campaign's Website? (Updated 12/30)
  
  
  • More - Polarik's Claims (Updated 12/29)
    
    
  • More - Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic (Updated 12/30)
    
    
  • Is Factcheck.org in the tank for Obama?  Is Factcheck.org owned by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

---

KENYA-RELATED CLAIMS

• Was Obama Born in Kenya? Is Obama a Kenyan Citizen?
  
  
• Was Obama Born in Kenya? (Part 2 - Grandmother/Family Claims) (Updated 1/6)

---

INDONESIA-RELATED CLAIMS

• Did Obama use an Indonesian Passport to Visit Pakistan? (Updated 1/26)
  
  
• Did Obama Become an Indonesian Citizen when His Mother, Ann Durham, Married Lolo Soetoro, and Moved to Indonesia? 

---

CANADIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE CLAIMS

• Does Obama have a Canadian Birth Certificate? (Note:  Berg does not discuss this claim in his Proposed Amended Complaint.)

---

ILLINOIS BAR ADMISSION CLAIMS

• Did Obama Lie on his Illinois ARDC Lawyer Registration Form?

---

BERG'S STANDING PROBLEM

• Mr. Berg's Standing Problem 
  
  
• Berg's Standing Problem - Part II 

---

THE NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

1/23 Update: SCOTUS & "Natural Born Citizen":  A compendium of U.S. Supreme Court cases using the term "natural born citizen" in any context) - in light of claims that "native-born" citizenship or "born a US citizen" per the 14th Amendment means something different than "natural born" citizenship per Article II. 

1/5 Update: The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause:  A compendium of cases and legal scholarship on meaning of "natural born citizenship" - in light of claimsthat a native-born US citizen who has "dual citizenship" at birth does not qualify as a "natural born" citizen under Article II.

---

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Berg v. Obama Citizenship Lawsuit: Status & Summary - January 6

We retained this post because multiple other sites have linked ot it. 

However, we've updated the Status & Summary HERE.

Court Dismisses Berg v. Obama Case Challenging Obama's Eligibility for the Presidency: No Standing to Sue

(Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

This blog is in the process of evaluating the allegations set forth in the complaint brought against Senator Obama, alleging that he is not qualified to serve as President, on multiple different grounds. The case was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by Mr. Philip Berg. Mr. Berg has published a website, www.obamacrimes.com, with copies of the pleadings and some materials related to the case. See here for the status & summary of our evaluation to date.

---

The Court has dismissed Berg's complaint, supported by a 33-page memorandum.  COPY OF ORDER & MEMO NOW AVAILABLE

---

Update:  We've replaced the news reports with a Copy of Memo & Order.

Some highlights from the opinion follow:

General:

We note that while we take Plaintiff's allegations as true for purposes of this motion (as we must), Defendants Obama and DNC characterize them as "patently false." See Opinion at 7, footnote 7.

"...Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory." See Opinion at 11, footnote 9 (emphasis supplied).

"Plaintiff attempts to establish standing on several additional grounds, but his arguments do not solve the fundamental problem that the harm he alleges does not constitute an injury in fact. His most reasonable arguments attempt to distinguish Hollander. For example, he asserts that the harm he has experienced is sufficient to constitute an injury in fact under Akins. However, Plaintiff ventures into the unreasonable with arguments based on a number of federal statutes." See Opinion at 14 (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied).

"Plaintiff makes additional claims about Obama and his campaign "abus[ing] their position and the law for intimidation purposes to stop people from free speech when the speech includes criticism or questioning ofObama ...."... The Amended Complaint makes no attempt to allege facts in support of these claims, which standing on their own are nothing more than conclusory allegations." See Opinion at 21, footnote 15 (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied).

Berg's attempt to distinguish Hollander:

"As we explained above, however, there is no meaningful distinction between the harm alleged here and the harm alleged in Hollander." See Opinion at 17.

Berg's Statutory Standing arguments:

"Plaintiff cites no authority under which any of these statutes would confer standing on him to bring his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim and we are aware ofnone, We therefore find that Plaintiffs attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion." See Opinion at 17-18.

Berg's § 1983 Standing argument:

"The irreducible basis of all Plaintiff's alleged violations is that Obama might be elected to the Office of President despite being constitutionally ineligible under the Natural Bom Citizen Clause. . . .The question, therefore, is straightforward: Does the Natural Bom Citizen Clause create a federal right the violation of which results in a cognizable § 1983 claim? We think not.

"After a diligent search, we have been unable to find any cases that address the matter and the parties have not offered any. However, other courts have addressed the application of § 1983 in analogous situations. . . . . Like the Supremacy Clause and the foreign affairs powers, the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not confer an individual right on citizensor voters.  Therefor, Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable  § 1983 claim." See Opinion at 19-20.

Berg's § 1985 Standing argument:

"The facts that Plaintiff alleges in support of his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim are substantively the same as the facts he alleges in support of his § 1983 claim. ... Plaintiff avers that Defendants' conduct amounts to a conspiracy in violation of § 1985. He does not, however, indicate the sub-section of § 1985 on which he premises his claim.

As a preliminary matter, where there is no federal right that creates a basis for a § 1983 claim there is similarly no basis for a § 1985 claim. * * * Moreover, none of the § 1985 clauses apply here. * * * Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable § 1985 claim. See Opinion at 21-22.

Berg's § 1986 Standing argument:

"It is well settled that "[a] plaintiff must establish a valid § 1985 claim in order to state a claim under § 1986." ... Since the Amended Complaint does not articulate a cognizable § 1985 claim, Plaintiffs § 1986 claim must fail as well." See Opinion at 23 (internal citations omitted).

Berg's Campaign Act Standing argument:

"Accordingly, even if Plaintiff had followed the proper administrative procedure, Plaintiff still would face an insurmountable obstacle to obtaining the information he now seeks through the courts. . . If Congress had intended the Campaign Act to require presidential candidates to make public disclosures of the sort that Plaintiff requests here - and therefore expose candidates to legal challenges permitted by the broad grant of standing pursuant to § 437g(a)(I) of the Act - then it would have done so explicitly." See Opinion at 26 (internal citations omitted).

Berg's FOIA Standing argument:

"Plaintiffs allegation fails to state a claim under FOIA for at least three reasons.

"First, FOIA applies only to govenunent agencies. ...." See Opinion at 28.

"Second, FOIA requires a valid request for records, and Plaintiff does not allege that he made such a request from the FEC. ... " See Opinion at 28-29.

"Third, before bringing a FOlA claim in federal court, a plaintiff must exhaust the available administrative remedies. ... " See Opinion at 29.

Berg's Promissory Estoppel Standing argument:

"The "promises" that Plaintiff identifies are statements of principle and intent in the political realm. They are not enforceable promises under contract law. Indeed, our political system could not function if every political message articulated by a campaign could be characterized as a legally binding contract enforceable by individual voters. Of course, voters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises. Federal courts, however, are not and cannot be in the business ofenforcing political rhetoric. See Opinion at 32.

Berg's Immigration and Nationality Act Standing argument:

"The provision on which Plaintiff relies sets up rules of evidence; it does not establish a private cause of action. . . . Because the provision does not establish a cause ofaction, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b)." See Opinion at 33.

---

Jeff Schreiber, of Americas Right, reports that Berg "will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court."

Is Factcheck.org "in the tank for" Obama? Is Factcheck.org owned by the Chicago Annenberg Foundation?

(Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

---

Mr. Berg's supporters frequently assert that you must discount the findings from FactCheck.org because that organization is "in the tank" for Obama and/or that organization is funded by the Annenberg Challenge which is the organization on whose board Obama sat for a number of years.

For example, Mr. Berg himself recently stated publicly, in a recorded video, that "Factcheck.org is owned by Annenberg of Chicago. Annenberg of Chicago is an organization that Obama sat on the board for a number of years ...." See this video (at 3:58).

This claim by Berg is simply - verifiably - untrue, as shown below.

Clarification:  This post is intended solely to address the factually inaccurate claim that Factcheck.org is owned or controlled by the organization upon which Obama served as a Board Member.  It does not address perceived "bias" in reporting on various stories.  As always, bias is "in the eye of the beholder" - i.e., subject to opinion.  This post is intended to address facts.

---

Here are the (verifiable) facts.

1. Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania ("APPC") (Source: http://www.factcheck.org/about)

Obama has never been ““heavily associated with” or "served on the board of" the APPC. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)

2. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 “to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.” (Source: http://www.factcheck.org/about)

Obama has never been “heavily associated with” Walter (or Leonore) Annenberg. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)

3. Walter and Leonore Annenberg, also established The Annenberg Foundation, which funds the APPC and issues grants on a wide variety of issues, worth 100s of millions of dollars. (Source: http://www.annenbergfoundation.org)

Obama has never been “heavily associated with” or "served on the board of" The Annenberg Foundation. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)

4. Mrs. Leonore Annenberg -- the surviving member of the couple who started The Annenberg Foundation -- has endorsed John McCain for president. (Source: http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/ambassador_mccain_/2008/10/05/137538.html)

Obama has never been “heavily associated with” Mrs. Leonore Annenberg who has, in fact, endorsed McCain. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)

5. The Annenberg Foundation, which funds the APPC and issues grants on a wide variety of issues, worth 100s of millions of dollars, funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Source: http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/usr_doc/Retrospective.pdf at page 8; http://www.annenberginstitute.org/challenge/sites/chicago.html)

Sen. Obama served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Source: See footnote sources cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge)

---

Therefore, the “connection” between Obama and Factcheck.org is as follows:

In the 1990s, Obama served on the board of an organization that received funding from a foundation, which

(a) was established and funded by a couple, the surviving member of whom has expressly, publicly, endorsed McCain; and

(b) now provides 100s of millions of dollars of grants to a wide variety of public interest organizations, including the organization (APPC) that runs Fact.check.org.

Therefore, Berg's attempts to discredit Factcheck.org by asserting that it is owned by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are demonstrably inaccurate.

Berg's Standing Problem - Part II

(Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

---

Earlier, we discussed Berg's Standing Problem - here.

10/4 Update: On Monday, Sept. 29, Mr. Berg filed his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. In his Opposition, Berg first attempts to distinguish Hollander - one of the cases against McCain, which the court dismissed on lack of standing. Second, he asserts five "sets of laws" to argue that he has standing.

---

An Aside:  We've received comments asking: "Who would have standing to sue if a voter does not?" and "If the courts can't decide this issue, who can? For a great answer to these two questions, we found the following very helpful:

• Robinson v. Bowen, discussed in our first post re: standing, here, and
• Daniel P. Tokaji, Commentary, The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 31 (2008).

---

DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is information found or reported to us to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find a published report of legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information.

---

Berg's Legal Argument		Pleading Citation(s)	Law Cited in Pleadings
A	"This case is easily distinguishable from Hollander v. McCain, 2008 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008)..."	Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 15.	Hollander v. McCain
B	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702	Opposition at 16.	5 U.S.C. § 702
C	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)	Opposition at 17.	FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
D	Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1481(b)	Opposition at 21.	8 U.S.C. § 1481(b)
E	Plaintiff has Standing under 5 U.S.C. §552(B)	Opposition at 23.	5 U.S.C. § 552(B)
F	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, Civil Rights and Elective Franchise	Opposition at 24.	28 U.S.C. § 343
G	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction	Opposition at 25.	28 U.S.C. § 1331

Let's look at these arguments.

A	Distinguishing Hollander
Berg asserts: "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." Bert then outlines four "factors" he alleges the Hollander court relied upon in its ruling. Hollander (per Berg) Berg Comparison The Hollander court, per Berg, held that 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. Here, Berg argues, 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 Essentially, Berg appears to allege that the "difference" is that Hollander involved the primaries, while Berg involves the general election. However, Hollander expressly made the "general election argument --  [Hollander argues that] This would lead to the disenfranchisement of [Hollander] and 100 million additional voters in the general presidential election. (Hollander Order at 6) -- and the Hollander court expressly rejected it. There is, thus, no difference between these two claims. The Hollander court, per Berg, held that the harm claimed "standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance." Here, Berg argues, "the harm Plaintiff suffered is particular to him because he has been denied the constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate..." Berg's argument is the exact same argument that Hollander made --  Hollander, however, argues that the harm to him from McCain s candidacy transcends simply the right to be governed by a constitutionally qualified President; Hollander claims it also impacts his right to vote, both in the New Hampshire Republican Primary and the general election. (emphasis added). (Hollander Order at 10-11) -- and that the Hollander court rejected. There is, thus, no difference between these two claims. The Hollander court, per Berg, held that Plaintiff did not "allege personal injury fairly traceable to the Defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct." Here, Berg argues, "Plaintiff's claims are traceable to the Defendants' unlawful behavior in failing to disclose information to which voters are entitled." Two issues: 1. In holding that Hollander failed to allege personal injury fairly traceable to the Defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, the Hollander court wad addressing Hollander's claim that he would be disenfranchised if McCain were actually elected, and then subsequently removed due to his lack of eligibility. After noting that any such alleged injury would occur not from McCain/RNC actions, but from whomever thereafter sought to remove McCain from office.  "[T]he theory does not establish Hollander s standing because it does not  allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant s allegedly unlawful conduct, Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984), but to the conduct of those--whoever they might turn out to be--responsible for ultimately ousting McCain from office. Indeed, McCain and the RNC are trying to achieve the opposite. Hollander Order at 15-16. In other words, the Court was addressing Hollander s argument re: injury in the event that McCain was actually elected. (Berg, argues comparable injuries in the event that Obama is elected and thereafter determined ineligible  although a bit more dramatic: unrest and violence could occur.) Second: Mr. Berg states that he, as a voter, is "entitled" to the information he seeks. However, as he cites no law to support this contention. Moreover, as noted at the top of this post, in a recent interview, Mr. Berg essentially admitted that no law exists granting him that right: "The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," See DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate, World Net Daily, Oct. 4, 2008. The Hollander court, per Berg, held that McCain was "unquestionably an American citizen." Here, Berg argues, Defendants have failed to show that Mr. Obama is "unquestionably an American citizen." The Hollander court referenced McCain's general citizenship in the "Background" of its opinion - because it was uncontested by the parties.  However, that uncontested fact was not a "factor" considered by the court in its holding. See Hollander Order.
Conclusion: Berg failed to distinguish Hollander.
As summarized above, Berg's failed to explain how the factors considered by the Hollander court do not apply to his case. Instead, the relevant factors are virtually identical.

Back to Top

B	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 5 United States Code. §702
In this section, Berg asserts standing, based on the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. However, 5 USC § 702 provides as follows: 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. .... (Emphasis added.) Read the provision yourself here: 5 USC § 702. See also 5 U.S.C. § 701 (1), which explains that "agency' means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include -... (E) agencies composed of representatives of the parties or of representatives of organizations of the parties to the disputes determined by them; ....."
Conclusion: Berg fails to explain why or how provisions of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act applies to a Presidential Candidate (Obama) or National Political Party (DNC); and fails to demonstrate that he followed required procedures to obtain standing to sue the FEC.
As highlighted in the quoted text above, to the extent that this provision applies at all to the case, it could only apply to the FEC, and not to Obama or the DNC. Because neither Obama, as candidate, nor the DNC are "federal agencies" subject to the Federal Administrative Law Act.

Back to Top

C	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Berg also asserts standing pursuant to FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) ("Atkins"). However, Akins  like 5 USC § 702, applies to federal agencies. Berg fails to explain how or why this case does - or should - apply to presidential candidates or national political parties. Read the case yourself here: FEC v. Akins Additionally, in Atkins, plaintiff sued after first filing an official complaint with the FEC, and obtaining an order from the FEC. See Atkins (PDF file at pp 3-6) for a discussion of the FEC proceedings. Here, Berg has not alleged that he has filed a complaint with the FEC, or that the FEC issued an order dismissing his complaint. As stated in Atkins: "Congress has specifically provided in FECA that "[a]ny person who believes a violation of this Act . . . has occurred, may file a complaint with the Commission. §437g(a)(1). It has added that "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party . . . may file a petition" in district court seeking review of that dismissal. §437g(8)(A)." FEC v. Akins, (PDF p. 7). Berg has not demonstrated that he (a) filed a complaint with the FEC or that (b) the FEC dismissed that complaint.  Thus, he hasn't met the test as enunciated by the Atkins Court, even if the law set forth in that decision otherwise would grant him standing to sue the FEC. Additionally, the Atkins court stated: "[T]his 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." FEC v. Akins, (PDF p. 7). However, Berg has not yet explained what statute requires disclosure of these materials.  Indeed, in a recent interview, Berg admitted that there is no such statute, saying "The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," See DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate, World Net Daily, Oct. 4, 2008.
Conclusion: Berg fails to explain why or how FEC v. Akins applies to a Presidential Candidate (Obama) or National Political Party (DNC); and fails to demonstrate that he followed required procedures to obtain standing to sue the FEC.
See above.

Back to Top

D	Plaintiff has Standing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1481(b)
Berg also asserts standing to sue under 8 U.S. C. §1481(b), which is a provision in Title 8, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, addressing immigration and nationality. However, 8 U.S. C. §1481 does not address standing of a private citizen to sue another person at all.  Rather, subsection (a) discusses the "rules" re: voluntary loss of citizenship; while subsection (b) addresses the appropriate burden of proof in any action regarding loss of citizenship. Read the statute yourself, here: 8 USC § 1481. In fact, the only provision we can find in Title 8, Chapter 12, addressing who can sue, and how, is in 8 USC § 1503. That provision provides the remedy (against federal agencies) that apply to a person denied rights on the grounds that s|he is not a national.  The law simply doesn't permit one person to sue another person to challenge his|her citizenship.
Conclusion: Berg fails to explain why or how 8 U.S.C. §1481(b) grants him standing to challenge any person's citizenship or to sue the DNC or FEC.
See above.

Back to Top

E	Plaintiff has Standing under 5 U.S.C. §552(B)
Next, Berg asserts that he has standing to sue under 5 U.S.C. 552(B). However, once again, this statute, like 5 U.S.C. § 702, discussed above, applies to federal agencies. Section 552 addresses FOIA requests  i.e., Freedom of Information Act requests. Specific procedures have been implemented for citizens to submit FOIA requests, requesting information such as the following (from § 552(a)(2) (A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases; (B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register; (C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; (D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and (E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D)... Read the statute yourself, here: 5 U.S.C. § 552. Once again Berg fails to explain why or how the Freedom of Information Act, which applies to federal agencies, should apply to a Presidential Candidate (Obama) or a national political party (the DNC). Additionally, Berg has submitted no evidence that he made a proper FOIA request for specific information from the FEC, or that it failed to provide any information properly requested.
Conclusion: Berg fails to explain why or how provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act applies to a Presidential Candidate (Obama) or National Political Party (DNC); and fails to demonstrate that he followed required procedures to obtain standing to sue the FEC.
See above.

Back to Top

F	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343
Berg also asserts standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This statute provides that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear cases: "(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (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." Read the statute yourself here: 28 U.S.C. § 1343. We think this "begs the question." The issue is not whether the federal court has jurisdiction to hear such a case, but whether Berg has demonstrated standing to sue under the statute. In any event, Berg fails to identify what "Act of Congress" grants the protection he seeks - i.e., what statute authorizes courts to require candidates to turn over the multifarious types of information contained in Berg's discovery requests, which you can review here. Indeed, as noted above, Berg admitted that there is no such statute, saying: "The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," See DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate, World Net Daily, Oct. 4, 2008.
Conclusion: Berg fails to identify any law that requires candidates to disclose the information he seeks to voters and, indeed, has publicly admitted that there is no such statute.
See above.

Back to Top

G	Plaintiff has Standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction - 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Finally, Berg asserts standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That statute provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Read the statute yourself here: 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Again, we're pretty sure that this begs the question. The district court has jurisdiction over all such actions. That is a completely separate issue from whether an individual person, with a particular claim, has standing to sue under whatever law s|he identifies. Additionally, Berg cites to Osborn v Bank of the United States, 22 US 738 (1824) and Verlinden BV v Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 US 480 (1983) to support what, we're not sure. Note, however, that in both Osborn and Verliden, the court specifically referenced comprehensive statutory schemes passed by Congress when finding that there was a justiciable federal question. Thus, it is difficult to see how either Osborn or Verlinden are remotely applicable to the case at issue, given that Berg appears to admit that: "There are no laws which specifically delegate whose responsibility it is to carry the burden of verifying the eligibility of a President. ....." See Opposition at 25. And, once again we note that Berg has publicly admitted that there is no such statute, in an interview with World Net Daily.  See DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate, World Net Daily, Oct. 4, 2008.
Conclusion: Berg fails to identify any Constitutional provision, law, or treaty provision which grants him standing to demand the information he seeks. Indeed, he has publicly admitted that there is no such statute.
See above.

Back to Top

Did Obama Become an Indonesian Citizen when His Mother, Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, and moved to Indonesia?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that Obama lost his US citizenship, by virtue of his mother's marriage to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, and her subsequent relocation with Obama to Indonesia.  (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

Because the facts - i.e., that Ms. Dunham married Mr. Soetoro, and that she moved Obama with her to Indonesia for a time - are not disputed, this post post evaluates the legal sources upon which Mr. Berg makes this claim.

---

DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is information found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find a published report of legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information.

---

Berg's Legal Argument		Pleading Citation(s)	Law Cited in Pleadings
A	Under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b), "Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia."	See Complaint ¶¶ 26-32; see also Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 6.	Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b)
B	Because the Nationality Act of 1940 also provided that a minor became naturalized (in the other country) upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person, Obama became expatriated by virtue of his mother's marriage and their subsequent relocation to Indonesia.	Id.	Nationality Act of 1940 (no specifics)
C	Although Ms. Dunham-Soetoro returned to Hawaii, she did not regain her US citizenship, because she never took the took the oath of allegiance required under the Nationality Act.	Id.	8 U.S.C. §1435
D	Because Obama's mother failed to take that oath, Obama could not regain his US citizenship until he turned 18, and took the oath of allegiance himself.	Id.	See above.

Let's look at the law Mr. Berg cites.

A	"Under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b), "Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia."
Berg asserts that under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b), "Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia." Complaint ¶ 31 (see generally ¶¶ 26-32) Assume that this provision of the Nationality Act of 1940 -- i.e., Section 317(b) -- was in effect at the time of Ms. Dunham's marriage to Mr. Soetoro. What does Section 317(b) say? "From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.***" Read the law yourself here:  Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 3, §§ 301-322.
Conclusion: The law Berg cites does not support his argument.  In fact, it directly contradicts his argument.
As quoted above, Section 317(b) applies to people who married to a foreign national prior to 1922. Mr. Berg's pleadings assert that Ms. Dunham married Mr. Soetoro around 1967 -- 45 years after the effective period addressed in this law (See Complaint ¶ 26).  Therefore, this law provides no basis for Mr. Berg's assertions.

Back to Top

B	Because the Nationality Act of 1940 also provided that a minor became naturalized (in the other country) upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person, Obama became expatriated by virtue of his mother's marriage and their subsequent relocation to Indonesia
Berg asserts that the Nationality Act of 1940 also provided that a minor became naturalized (in the other country) upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Therefore, Berg argues, Obama lost his US citizenship by virtue of his mother's marriage and their subsequent relocation to Indonesia. Assume that the applicable provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940 were in effect at the time that Ms. Dunham-Soetoro moved Obama to Indonesia. What does that Act say about the impact of a parent's actions on a minor's US citizenship? Section 401 said as follows: "A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:....." (Italics in original; Bold added) That Act, at Section 407 said: "A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States." (Italics in original; Bold added) Read the law yourself here: Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 4, §§ 401-410.
Conclusion: The law Berg cites does not support his argument.  In fact, it directly contradicts his argument.
As quoted above, the Nationality Act of 1940, upon which Berg relies, expressly states that a minor did not lose his US citizenship by virtue of his mother's actions, "unless and until" he turned 23 years old without having taken permanent residence in the United States. ~~~ Note also that these provisions of the Act were amended by 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3.  Therefore, the 1952 provisions would have applied to Obama when he moved to Indonesia and then returned to the US in 1971 (per Berg's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 9.) The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, section 349 (a), provided: "From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by -- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ...." (Italics in original; Bold added) Section 355 of that Act provided that: "A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States." (Italics in original; Bold added). Read the law yourself here:  1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3. Given that Obama returned to the U.S., and established permanent residency there, long before he was either 23 or 25, this distinction is rather irrelevant.  However, we provided it based on Berg's assertion that the law in effect at the time of the events is the correct law to apply.

Back to Top

C	Although Ms. Dunham-Soetoro returned to Hawaii, she did not regain her US citizenship, because she never took the took the oath of allegiance required under the Nationality Act
As discussed in A, above, Berg's assertion that Ms. Dunham-Soetoro lost her US citizenship upon her marriage to Lolo Soetoro under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b) is not supported by the law he cites.  That law applied only to persons married prior to 1922. Since Ms. Dunham-Soetoro never lost her citizenship under Section 317(b) -- because she married Soetoro in the 1960s, long after 1922 -- there was no need to regain her citizenship and/or to take any oath of allegiance.
Conclusion: The law Berg cites does not support his argument.  In fact, it directly contradicts his argument.
See above.

Back to Top

D	Because Obama's mother failed to take that oath, Obama could not regain his US citizenship until he turned 18, and took the oath of allegiance himself.
First:  As discussed in A, above, Berg's assertion that Ms. Dunham-Soetoro lost her US citizenship upon her marriage to Lolo Soetoro under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b) is not supported by the law he cites.  That law applied only to persons married prior to 1922. Since Ms. Dunham-Soetoro never lost her citizenship under Section 317(b) -- because she married Soetoro in the 1960s, long after 1922 -- there was no need to regain her citizenship and/or to take any oath of allegiance. Second:  As discussed in B, above, whatever the status of his mother, both the 1940 Nationality Act and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which amended the 1940 Act, expressly provided that Obama could not lose his US citizenship by virtue of his mother's actions so long as he returned to the US and established residency before he was 23/25.
Conclusion: The law Berg cites does not support his argument.  In fact, it directly contradicts his argument.
See above.

Back to Top

Note re: Resources

Links to Laws & Related Resources: Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 3, §§ 301-322. Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 3, §§ 323-334. Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 3, §§ 335-336. Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 3, §§ 337-347. Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 4, §§ 401-410. 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 1. 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3.

Back to Top

Was Obama's COLB Forged? Did Obama Post a Forged COLB on his Campaign's Website?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that the birth certificate published on Obama's website is a forgery.  (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

12/30 Update:  Several editorial changes were made to conform to related, updated posts.

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	"After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth,....	Complaint ¶ 35; see also TRO Memo at 8.	None.
B	... a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website."	Id.	None.
C	"However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website."	Id.	None.
D	"The Forensic Expert findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was in fact a forgery."	Id.	None.
E	"It was further discovered that this original Certificate of Live Birth which had been altered and forged was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970."	Id.	None.
F	"Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia ...	Id.; see also Complaint ¶ 66.	None.
G	...and her birth was later registered in Hawaii."	Id.	None.
H	"The altered and forged COLB ...	Id.	None.
I	... is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert [sic] "	Id.	Link.
J	"Obama clearly shows consciousness of guilt by his actions by posting a forged birth certificate on his website, and by and the falsifications he told to cover his loss of citizenship."	Complaint ¶ 39; see also TRO Memo at 9.	None.
K	"Obama attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American people by allowing an altered and forged Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) to be placed on his campaign website."	Complaint ¶ 66.	None.
L	"Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970."	Id.	None.

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	"After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth,...."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
????	We have found multiple "rhetorical" questions on the internet, but to date have not found evidence of any actual attempts or requests.  However, we recall previously reading that that at least some bloggers may have written e-mails and/or attempted to obtain the birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health. 9/22 Update:  Politifact reported that: We tried to obtain a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but his campaign would not release it and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public. (UPDATE: On June 12, 2008, the Obama campaign e-mailed to PolitiFact a copy of the senator's birth certificate. It confirms our findings. See it for yourself here.)	======== 9/22 Update Source: See Politifact.com, Truth-o-Meter.	---
????	We received a comment from Polarik (the person we believe is one of the "experts" identified in Berg's Complaint). While the Comment did not comply with our standards for publishable comments, we note that his comment included the following information:  "My evidence consistgs of three months of solid, irrefutable proof that (a) Obama has never shown his original birth record or his current birth record to the media or to any neutral party..." While Polarik's comment did not provide evidence of any actual attempts or requests, we are including this information as promised. 12/30 Update: For additional information on Polarik's Subsequent Reports (and comments), see here.	N/A ======== 9/22 Update Source:  See Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one (Polarik, Sept. 18, 2008)	---
Conclusion: Unclear at time of Filing; True Now.
As noted above, while we have yet not found evidence of such requests, we do believe that at least some bloggers attempted to obtain this information from the Hawaii Dept. of Health. 12/30 Update: TRUE NOW:  In the months since Berg's case was filed, multiple bloggers have reported their attempts to obtain the Birth Certificate. Additionally, the Hawaii Department of Health has commented on multiple requests for the Birth Certificate. See, e.g., "Officials verify birth certificate of Obama; Hawaii's health director steps in after numerous requests for the document," Star-Bulletin, Nov. 1, 2008; Obama's Certificate of Birth OK, State Says; Health Director Issues Voucher in Response to 'Ridiculous' Barrage, Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1, 2008 (""This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid. Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu -- and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.)

Back to Top

B	"... a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	A copy of Obama's COLB was posted on Obama's campaign website.	See here.	---
Conclusion: True
A copy of the COLB is posted on Obama's campaign website.

Back to Top

C	"However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website."
What's Your Evidence?
????	Because Mr. Berg does not identify the alleged "Document Forensic Experts," it is virtually impossible to determine the person(s) to whom he is referring. However, we have located two one (but not three) anonymous posters who allege (a) that they are "experts" or "document forensic experts"; and (b) that they peformed "extensive testing" or "performed extensive forensic testing" on the COLB posted on the Obama campaign website.  Both posters have declined to identify themselves, but go by the "screennames" of of "Polarik" and "TechDude." Because the information relating to Polarik and Techdude is rather extensive, we've created separate pages to deal with each person's claims: Analysis of Polarik's Findings Analysis of Techdude's Findings (under construction; check back for links!) 9/22 Update:  Mr. Berg has now identified - at least by screen name - one of the alleged "experts," confirming our assumption that Polarik was one of the three experts Berg referenced was Polarik. See Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one (Polarik, Sept. 18, 2008).  On the Berg website, this person identifies himself as "Ron Polarik." 12/29 Update:  However, in publishing a Mr. Berg has published a video of "Dr. Ron Polarik," discussing his claims, video of Polarik discussing his Claims, the Berg site introduced the video as follows:  "This video provides an analysis of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. "Dr. Polarik" is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video." 9/24 Update:  It has been reported to us that a Berg representative has expressly denied that "Techdude" (or "Tech Dude") is one of their experts.  Per the report, "Berg's Assistant" stated:  "Now, just to clear the air, I want to be very clear, Tech dude is NOT one of our Experts. ...[Y]ou don't know who techdue is, however, we do."   Link provided in report (Statement in comments).  As noted in a separate comment (by "SE"), Berg's website posted an article on August 23, titled "Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate." In that article, Mr. Berg stated:  "My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst[] & .," and invited the public to read that analyst's full report: "Read the completer (sic) report at Atlas Shrugs" -- which is, in fact, a "Final Report" written by "Techdude."   This article was removed from Berg's site sometime after September 18, but can still be found in Google's cache: Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate.
FALSE	Other self-identified experts and investigators, most of whom have disclosed their real name and credentials, have determined that the COLB is, in fact, authentic, as summarized here and/or here.
Conclusion: Unclear
We can confirm that two one (but not three) anonymous posters* have published materials in which it is asserted that they are experts or document forensic experts and that they performed extensive forensic testing or performed extensive testingon an Obama COLB. Moreover, multiple attributed and attributable sources have reported that the COLB is authentic, as reported here. *9/24 Update: See note above re: Techdude.

Back to Top

D	"The Forensic Expert findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was in fact a forgery."
What's Your Evidence?
????	Because Mr. Berg does not identify the alleged "Document Forensic Experts," it is virtually impossible to determine the person(s) to whom he is referring. However, we have located two one (but not three) anonymous posters who allege (a) that they are "document forensic experts"; and (b) that they "performed extensive forensic testing" on the COLB posted on the Obama campaign website. Both posters have declined to identify themselves, but go by the "screennames" of "Polarik" and "TechDude." Because the information relating to Polarik and Techdude is rather extensive, we've created separate pages to deal with each person's claims: Analysis of Polarik's Findings Analysis of Techdude's Findings (under construction; check back for links!) 9/22 Update:  Mr. Berg has now identified - at least by screen name - one of the alleged "experts," confirming our assumption that Polarik was one of the three experts Berg referenced was Polarik. See Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one (Polarik, Sept. 18, 2008).  On the Berg website, this person identifies himself as "Ron Polarik." 12/29 Update:  However, in publishing a Mr. Berg has published a video of "Dr. Ron Polarik," discussing his claims, video of Polarik discussing his Claims, the Berg site introduced the video as follows:  "This video provides an analysis of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. "Dr. Polarik" is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video." 9/24 Update: It has been reported to us that a Berg representative has expressly denied that "Techdude" (or "Tech Dude") is one of their experts.  Per the report, "Berg's Assistant" stated:  "Now, just to clear the air, I want to be very clear, Tech dude is NOT one of our Experts. ...[Y]ou don't know who techdue is, however, we do."   Link provided in report (Statement in comments).  As noted in a separate comment (by "SE"), Berg's website posted an article on August 23, titled "Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate." In that article, Mr. Berg stated:  "My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst[] & .," and invited the public to read that analyst's full report: "Read the completer (sic) report at Atlas Shrugs" -- which is, in fact, a "Final Report" written by "Techdude."   This article was removed from Berg's site sometime after September 18, but can still be found in Google's cache: Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate.
FALSE	Other self-identified experts and investigators, most of whom have disclosed their real name and credentials, have determined that the COLB is, in fact, authentic, as summarized here and/or here.
Conclusion: Unclear
We can confirm that two one (but not three) anonymous posters* have published their conclusions that an Obama COLB was forged (although not necessarily the COLB file posted on the Obama campaign website). Moreover, multiple attributed and attributable sources have reported that the COLB is authentic. *9/24 Update: But see note above re: Techdude.

Back to Top

E	"It was further discovered that this original Certificate of Live Birth which had been altered and forged was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	See Conclusion.	---
Conclusion: False/Unsubstantiated
We have conducted multiple Google searches, but have been unable to find the original source reporting this, although we found many many posts referencing the Berg complaint itself. We did find this entry at NoQuarter:  Why Is Maya Soetoro's Name on Barack's Phony Certificate of Live Birth? (and a few other entries such as this), which reference a report on TexasDarlin's blog. However, TexasDarlin, noted some issues with TechDude's work (cached here): "All information that we have received from Techdude has been published.  We have not seen the rest of his evidence.  At present, he is unavailable.  Should he not respond promptly, we will remove his statements and findings.  In the future, if we receive all of the documentation he promised and are able to prove that it's credible, we will restore his reports." She subsequently pulled all of Techdude's work off her website. We have not located any blog which continues to espouse this theory, although, as noted above, we've found multiple postings refering to Berg's complaint and/or the retracted original report on TexasDarlin. See also Polarik's analysis of Techdude here (post 45):  (Note: Polarik is the other identified "expert" apparently referenced in Berg's complaint.): "....I broke the news about how TechDude fabricated his evidence and pretty much lied about everything else. I knew it from the beginning, and all the time, I kept it to myself, as a favor to TexasDarling, who had done an "Exclusive" on his work just as Pam Geller had done, as well as Israel Insider, too. He suckered a lot of people an tarnished not only himself, but everyone else who trusted him...." Special Note:  We have not yet located the original report in which Polarik "broke the news" referenced above, and were unable to located it on his blog.  However, we will update this information if and when we find it. Therefore, we conclude that this assertion is false and/or unsubstantiated. 9/24 Update: It has been reported to us that a Berg representative has expressly denied that "Techdude" (or "Tech Dude") is one of their experts.  Per the report, "Berg's Assistant" stated:  "Now, just to clear the air, I want to be very clear, Tech dude is NOT one of our Experts. ...[Y]ou don't know who techdue is, however, we do."   Link provided in report (Statement in comments).  As noted in a separate comment (by "SE"), Berg's website posted an article on August 23, titled "Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate." In that article, Mr. Berg stated:  "My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst[] & .," and invited the public to read that analyst's full report: "Read the completer (sic) report at Atlas Shrugs" -- which is, in fact, a "Final Report" written by "Techdude."   This article was removed from Berg's site sometime after September 18, but can still be found in Google's cache: Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate.

Back to Top

F	"Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	According to sources cited in Wikipedia, as well as Obama's memoir, Dreams of My Father, Maya Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia. Disclaimer:  See Important Note re: Wipedia, here.	Wikipedia - Maya Soetoro-Ng.	---
Conclusion: True/Undisputed
It is undisputed that Maya Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia.

Back to Top

G	"...and her birth was later registered in Hawaii."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	See Conclusion.	---
Conclusion: False/Unsubstantiated
We have conducted multiple Google searches, but have been unable to find the original source reporting this, although we found many many posts referencing the Berg complaint itself. We did find this entry at NoQuarter:  Why Is Maya Soetoro's Name on Barack's Phony Certificate of Live Birth? (and a few other entries such as this), which reference a report on TexasDarlin's blog. However, TexasDarlin, noted some issues with TechDude's work (cached here): "All information that we have received from Techdude has been published.  We have not seen the rest of his evidence.  At present, he is unavailable.  Should he not respond promptly, we will remove his statements and findings.  In the future, if we receive all of the documentation he promised and are able to prove that it's credible, we will restore his reports." She subsequently pulled all of Techdude's work off her website. We have not located any blog which continues to espouse this theory, although, as noted above, we've found multiple postings refering to Berg's complaint and/or the retracted original report on TexasDarlin. See also Polarik's analysis of Techdude here (post 45):  (Note: Polarik is the other identified "expert" apparently referenced in Berg's complaint.): "....I broke the news about how TechDude fabricated his evidence and pretty much lied about everything else. I knew it from the beginning, and all the time, I kept it to myself, as a favor to TexasDarling, who had done an "Exclusive" on his work just as Pam Geller had done, as well as Israel Insider, too. He suckered a lot of people an tarnished not only himself, but everyone else who trusted him...." Therefore, we conclude that this assertion is false and/or unsubstantiated. 9/24 Update: It has been reported to us that a Berg representative has expressly denied that "Techdude" (or "Tech Dude") is one of their experts.  Per the report, "Berg's Assistant" stated:  "Now, just to clear the air, I want to be very clear, Tech dude is NOT one of our Experts. ...[Y]ou don't know who techdue is, however, we do."   Link provided in report (Statement in comments).  As noted in a separate comment (by "SE"), Berg's website posted an article on August 23, titled "Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate." In that article, Mr. Berg stated:  "My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst[] & .," and invited the public to read that analyst's full report: "Read the completer (sic) report at Atlas Shrugs" -- which is, in fact, a "Final Report" written by "Techdude."   This article was removed from Berg's site sometime after September 18, but can still be found in Google's cache: Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate.

Back to Top

H	"The altered and forged COLB ..."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
????	See conclusion.	---	---
Conclusion: Unclear
As shown above, we have left the conclusion regarding any forgery as "unclear," especially given that we have been unable to determine who third [two of the three] "independent forensic expert" is are, or what his/her [their] findings are. See also: Analysis of Polarik's Findings Analysis of Techdude's Findings (under construction; check back for links!) 9/22 Update:  Mr. Berg has now identified - at least by screen name - one of the alleged "experts," confirming our assumption that Polarik was one of the three experts Berg referenced was Polarik. See Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one (Polarik, Sept. 18, 2008).  On the Berg website, this person identifies himself as "Ron Polarik." 12/29 Update:  However, in publishing a Mr. Berg has published a video of "Dr. Ron Polarik," discussing his claims, video of Polarik discussing his Claims, the Berg site introduced the video as follows:  "This video provides an analysis of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. "Dr. Polarik" is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video." 9/24 Update: It has been reported to us that a Berg representative has expressly denied that "Techdude" (or "Tech Dude") is one of their experts.  Per the report, "Berg's Assistant" stated:  "Now, just to clear the air, I want to be very clear, Tech dude is NOT one of our Experts. ...[Y]ou don't know who techdue is, however, we do."   Link provided in report (Statement in comments).  As noted in a separate comment (by "SE"), Berg's website posted an article on August 23, titled "Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate." In that article, Mr. Berg stated:  "My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst[] & .," and invited the public to read that analyst's full report: "Read the completer (sic) report at Atlas Shrugs" -- which is, in fact, a "Final Report" written by "Techdude."   This article was removed from Berg's site sometime after September 18, but can still be found in Google's cache: Forensic analysis of Obama birth certificate.

Back to Top

I	"[The COLB] ...is still on Obama's web site located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert [sic] "
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	The COLB is, as of today, still posted on the Obama campaign web site, here.	COLB - Obama Campaign Website	---
Conclusion: True
As of today (September 9, 2008), the COLB is still posted on the Obama campaign website.

Back to Top

J	"Obama clearly shows consciousness of guilt by his actions by posting a forged birth certificate on his website, and by and the falsifications he told to cover his loss of citizenship."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	None.	---
Conclusion: False/Unsubstantiated
As shown above, we have left the conclusion regarding any forgery as "unclear," given that we have been unable to determine who [two of the three] the third "independent forensic expert" is are, or what his/her [their] findings are. With respect to the one identified expert, see Analysis of Polarik's Findings. However, even if it were determined that a file was forged, Berg has provided no evidence, and we have been unable to locate any evidence indicating that Obama knew of any such forgery.

Back to Top

K	"Obama attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American people by allowing an altered and forged Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) to be placed on his campaign website."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	None.	---
Conclusion: False/Unsubstantiated
As shown above, we have left the conclusion regarding any forgery as "unclear," given that we have been unable to determine who [two of the three] the third "independent forensic expert" is are, or what his/her [their] findings are. With respect to the one identified expert, see Analysis of Polarik's Findings. However, even if it were determined that a file was forged, Berg has provided no evidence, and we have been unable to locate any evidence indicating that Obama knew of any such forgery.

Back to Top

L	"Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	None.	---
Conclusion: False/Unsubstantiated
As shown above, we have left the conclusion regarding any forgery as "unclear," given that we have been unable to determine who [two of the three] the third "independent forensic expert" is are, or what his/her [their] findings are. With respect to the one identified expert, see Analysis of Polarik's Findings. However, even if it were determined that a file was forged, Berg has provided no evidence, and we have been unable to locate any evidence indicating that Obama knew of any such forgery.

Back to Top

Did Obama Lie on his Illinois ARDC Lawyer Registration Form?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that Obama lied to the Illinois Supreme Court in his Attorney Registration filing. (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	"Further investigation led to Obama's State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record."	Complaint ¶ 36; see also TRO Memo at 8.	None
B	"On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record it specifically asks for 'Full former name(s).'"	Id.	None
C	"Obama put 'None,' when in fact he went by the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama."	Id.	None
D	"It is further believed Obama has used the name Barry Dunham."	Id.	None
E	"Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the penalty of perjury."	Id.	None

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	"Further investigation led to Obama's State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
Unk?	Apparently, Berg's "investigation" involved internet research leading him to this claim made by several (anonymous) bloggers.	See Obama failed to list other names he has used on his Illinois ARC registration, available on Berg's website.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Unable to verify extent of investigation, but apparently inadequate.
As noted above, it appears that Berg did not undertake a reasonable investigation into the allegations raised by various, mostly anonymous bloggers.

Back to Top

B	"On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record it specifically asks for 'Full former name(s).'"
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
Unk?	Berg cites a printout of the results obtained from a search for "Barack Obama" in the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (ARDC-IL).	See Obama failed to list other names he has used on his Illinois ARC registration.	See Conclusion.
False	However, Berg inaccurately claims that the form "asks" for "full former name(s).    In fact, the form displays full former name(s) reported by the attorney: "ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of August 26, 2008 at 12:36:02 PM:"	See ARDC-IL, Attorney Search Results for Barack Obama.	See Conclusion.
	As explained by the ARDC-IL, (a) the "Full Licensed Name" displays the current name under which the attorney is licensed in Illinois; and (b) the "Full Former Name(s) displays any former names under which the attorney was licenced to practice law in Illinois:  "The ARDC master roll of registered attorneys lists a lawyer's name in the same manner as the name appears on the roll of attorneys. The roll of attorneys is a list of all attorneys admitted to practice of law in Illinois. ... A lawyer's name on the Clerk's roll of attorneys is the name under which the lawyer was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois or, if any name changes have been allowed by the Court, the most recent such change." 8/27 Update:  The Illinois ARDC Clerk's Office confirms that The Former Names Field contains only the name(s) of the person previously listed on the Illinois Master Roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Illinois; and The Former Names Field does not refer to any name(s) adopted prior to becoming licensed to practice law in Illinois; nor does it refer to any informal names used by the attorney at issue.	See ARDC-IL, Lawyer Registration - Request for Name Change. 8/27 Update:  See also "Dissecting, and Refuting, Philip Berg's Perjury Claim," AmericasRight.com	See Conclusion.
	Stated another way, if Alice Attorney gets married (or divorced) and changes her name to Alice Lawyer *after* she's admitted into practice, then she must file a name change with the Illinois Supreme Court. Her prior name -- i.e., the name under which she was admitted -- will show up as a former name. To see this, conduct a search for Michelle Obama - a perfect example - here: the ARDC search for Michelle Obama provides a perfect example of this fact. Her results are as follows: Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson	See ARDC-IL, Attorney Search Results for Michelle Obama.  8/27 Update:  See also "Dissecting, and Refuting, Philip Berg's Perjury Claim," AmericasRight.com	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: False; Direct Evidence Contradicts Allegation
Berg's allegation is, quite simply, false. The screenshot produced on his website is a public record of Obama's public ARDC information.  Berg has provided no evidence to support his allegation that Barack had any former legal names. Even assuming facts not in evidence - i.e., that Barack actually had former legal names, Berg has provided no evidence to support his allegation that Barack failed to disclose them to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The ARDC simply does not reflect such information. The ARDC Register website makes clear that the names listed on the attorney register are names under which the person was licenced to practice law in Illinois. To clarify: Assuming that Barack (a) had a different legal name, and -- to take it further, assuming that (b) he disclosed that legal name on his application for admission to the bar, that name would NOT show up on the Lawyer Register website. The purpose of the Lawyer Register is for citizens to be able to search for lawyers and to see, e.g, if they've ever been subject to discipline by the Bar. Thus, if a person practiced under a different name, that other name must be disclosed. (Otherwise, a person who was disciplined could avoid "disclosure" simply by changing his/her name.) Thus, what shows up on the Lawyer Register website is other names that the attorney used during the practice of law. In short, on the issue of whether Obama, assuming he had a different name, disclosed any such different name on his Illinois Bar Application, the screenshot of Obama's record in the Illinois Lawyer Register on Berg's website provides no evidence of that fact one way or the other.

Back to Top

C	"Obama put 'None,' when in fact he went by the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See B, above for both Berg's "evidence" and the facts directly refuting Berg's evidence.	See B, above.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: False; Direct Evidence Contradicts Allegation
See B, above.

Back to Top

D	"It is further believed Obama has used the name Barry Dunham."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	None.	None.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Likely False; Not Supported by Any Verifiable Facts
Many blogs refer to Barack Obama as "Barry Durham," but no article has been located containing facts/evidence indicating that Obama actually adopted the legal name of "Barry Dunham."

Back to Top

E	"Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the penalty of perjury."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See B, above for both Berg's "evidence" and the facts directly refuting Berg's evidence.	See B, above.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: False; Direct Evidence Contradicts Allegation
See B, above. 9/23 Update:  This conclusion section previously contained an analogy to illustrate a logical problem with Berg's argument.  However, it has been reported to us that Berg and/or his representatives misunderstood the analogy to be an allegation of improper conduct against Berg.  It was in no manner intended as such.  Therefore, we have removed the analogy to prevent any other readers from misunderstanding the point. We generally make our corrections in "markup"/via strikethrough; however, given that reported misunderstanding of the text, we are deleting the comment in its entirety, to ensure that no one else makes that mistake.

Back to Top

Was Obama's COLB Forged? Did Obama Post a Forged COLB on his Campaign's Website? - Polarik's Claims

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleged, in his complaint filed against Obama, that "[A]s posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was in fact a forgery." (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refutes the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

---

12/3 Update:

Polarik's YouTube Video:  Mr. Berg has published a video of "Dr. Ron Polarik," discussing his claims, New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB, introduced as follows:  "This video provides an analysis of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. "Dr. Polarik" is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video."

• Steve Eddy has issued his analysis of the claims made in the YouTube video here:  Polarik's YouTube Video (Koyaan's Blog). (Updated 12/4)  

Polarik's Latest Report: Polarik has also recently published his "final report," here: Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.  (Polarik reported this to us in an 11/22 comment tagged by Typepad as "spam," and, as such, his comment was received just today in the process of cleaning out our spam folder.)

• Dr. Neal Krawetz (real name) has issued his analysis of Polarik's final report here: Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.

It will take us a bit to break these reports down into an issue by issue analysis. However, as Polarik's new report renders at least some of the information regarding prior reports obsolete, we have removed the information regarding other self-identified experts' analyses of his old reports.  We've included the link to the one other self-identified expert who has evaluated his new report, and will provide links/information to other reports (whether supporting or refuting the current claims) as they are reported to us.  

---

9/22 Update: Mr. Berg has now published a revised report issued by "Ron Polarik" See Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one (Polarik, Sept. 18, 2008).  Therefore, we have confirmed that Polarik is one of the referenced "experts" on this issue.  We are evaluating Polarik's report and will update this post to reflect that information soon. 

---

So, again, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence that either supports or refutes the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly.  Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	Is "Polarik" a qualified "[forensic] expert" pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?	Complaint ¶ 35; see also TRO Memo at 8.	None.
B	Did Polarik evaluate the COLB posted on Obama's campaign website?	---	---
C	Did Polarik conduct "extensive [forensic] testing" on a COLB?	Id.	None.
D	Did Polarik determine that the COLB he evaluated is a forgery?	Id.	None.
E	Have other "experts" confirmed Polarik's findings as accurate?	---	---

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	Is "Polarik" a qualified " forensic(?) expert" pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	Polarik explains his expert qualifications in both the video noted in the 12/3 update, above and elsewhere.		See, e.g., New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB
??	12/3 Update:  Berg identifed Polarik as his (or one of his) experts on his COLB forgery claim, and  stated, in his original complaint that "extensive forensic testing" was done on the COLB (see citations above). However, Polarik has taken issue with our use of the term "forensic," commenting: "You repeatedly use the phrase, "forensic testing," in relation to my research, as if I had ever used it, or made any associations to it. The fact of the matter is that I have never claimed to be a "forensic" anything because, to me, "forensic" restricts the focus of the research to finding evidence of criminal activity. The use of the term is also inappropriate, because it obviates the entire sphere of investigative research conducted in hundreds of other fields." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, we've stricken the term "forensic" from this entry.  Polarik contends that he is not a forensic expert.  But see 12/29 update, below.  (As noted above, he describes his expert qualifications, including in the New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB and elsewhere.)		(11/22 Comment from Polarik; received 12/3)
??	12/29 Update:  In a comment submitted 12/23, Polarik now does claim to be a forensic expert: "I am the one and only one forensics expert in the field of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth documnets and document reproduction." (Emphasis supplied)		(12/23 Comment from Polarik)
Conclusion: Unclear
12/3 Update:  Polarik asserts that he is an expert both in the video shown above and in his comments to us.  However, because he uses a pseudonym (at least according to Berg), it is impossible to verify his credentials or to determine whether they meet the qualifications set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence on Expert Witnesses). See also Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.  12/29 Update:  As to the issue of whether or not he is a forensic expert, we are unsure how to reconcile his two recent statements on the issue.

Back to Top

B	Did Polarik evaluate the COLB posted on Obama's campaign website?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	12/3 Update:  Polarik contends that he did and has recently offered information to support his claim, including the following: "To summarize, there was one, and only one, original source image that was forged, and four copies of this source image were distributed to (1) the pro-Obama Daily Kos blog, (2) Obama's Fight The Smears campaign website, (3) Annenberg's Factcheck website, and lastly, (4) the St. Petersburg times Politifact website. On all of these images, there is a telltale "dot" (a piece of dirt left on the scanner glass) that proves they all came from a single source file."		11/22 Comment from Polarik; received 12/3; see also, Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.
Conclusion: True
12/3 Update:  We have modified this section to "true," in that Polarik contends that there was only one original source image and so his analysis applies to all images, including the COLB image posted on Obama's website.

Back to Top

C	Did Polarik conduct "extensive forensic (?) testing" on a COLB?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	12/3 Update:  As evidenced by his most recent report, the multiple prior reports and published comments, and the post-final report publications of clarifications, etc. it is reasonable to conclude that Polarik conducted extensive testing on Obama's COLB.		See Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.
??	12/3 Update:  Berg identifed Polarik as his (or one of his) experts on his COLB forgery claim, and  stated, in his original complaint that "extensive forensic testing" was done on the COLB (see citations above). However, Polarik has taken issue with our use of the term "forensic," commenting: "You repeatedly use the phrase, "forensic testing," in relation to my research, as if I had ever used it, or made any associations to it. The fact of the matter is that I have never claimed to be a "forensic" anything because, to me, "forensic" restricts the focus of the research to finding evidence of criminal activity. The use of the term is also inappropriate, because it obviates the entire sphere of investigative research conducted in hundreds of other fields." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, we've stricken the term "forensic" from this entry.  Polarik contends that he is not a forensic expert.  But see 12/29 update, below.  (As noted above, he describes his expert qualifications, including in the New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB and elsewhere.)		(11/22 Comment from Polarik; received 12/3)
??	12/29 Update:  In a comment submitted 12/23, Polarik now does claim to be a forensic expert: "I am the one and only one forensics expert in the field of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth documnets and document reproduction." (Emphasis supplied)		(12/23 Comment from Polarik)
Conclusion: True
12/3 Update:  See discussion above.  12/29 Update:  As to the issue of whether or not he is a forensic expert, we are unsure how to reconcile his two recent statements on the issue.

Back to Top

D	Did Polarik determine that the COLB he evaluated is a forgery?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	12/3 Update:  See his "final report."		See Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.
Conclusion: True
See above - Polarik's report concludes that the COLB was a forgery.

Back to Top

E	Have other "experts" confirmed Polarik's findings as accurate?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
????	12/3 Update:  We have been unable to find other self-identified experts to verify Polarik's findings.		n/a
	As to his prior reports, which contained some information and contentions that he's revised in his latest report, several other self-identified experts evaluated Polarik's findings and concluded that they were not valid. Note:  Because we have not yet compared prior reports to new reports, to determine whether the elements of Polarik's new report addressed in prior self-identified experts' challenges to his analysis and findings, we have removed references to those other self-identified experts' analysis at this time.		n/a
????	12/29 Update:  Polarik recently commented as follows: "I am the one and only one forensics expert in the field of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth documnets and document reproduction. I meet all of the criteria, but if there are any loose ends then they have been tied up by questionable document forensics expert Sandra Ramsey Lines who has corroborated my final report." We have not been able to locate a copy of a report by Ms. Lines corroborating Polarik's forgery claims. However, we were forwarded a link to a declaration that appears to have been filed in a Hawaii case (that has since been dismissed). You can read the full declaration, along with Ms. Ramsey Lines' credentials and background here. In that affidavit, Ms. Ramsey Lines declares that: "Mr.Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document."  (Declaration) She concludes that if an original exists, that original must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or nongenuiness. (I.e., stated another way, it is impossible to determine whether an online image is genuine.) In the affidavit, Ms. Lines does not discuss or confirm Polarik's specific findings of forgery * but, rather, as summarized above, states that genuineness cannot be determined based on a digital image. *The only image-specific claim addressed in the Ramsey Lines affidavit is the obliteration of the Certificate No. on the online COLB image. Ms. Ramsey Lines described that aspect as "clearly questionable," and noted: "That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, "Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?" It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for obliterating it." (Declaration) With respect to the blacked out certificate number, Factcheck.org reported as follows: "We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641." See Born in the U.S.A., Factcheck.org; see also image of COLB with certificate number shown, posted by Factcheck.org here.		12/23 Comment from Polarik; Sandra Ramsey Lines Declaration; Born in the U.S.A., Factcheck.org
False	12/3 Update:  However, Dr. Neal Krawetz (real name) has reviewed Polarik's "final report," and concluded that it was based on "bad science." 12/29 Update:  Polarik takes issue with Dr. Krawetz's report here.		See Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.
False	12/4 Update:  Additionally, Steve Eddy (real name) has reviewed Polarik's YouTube video claims, and concludes that the findings cannot be supported.		See Polarik's YouTube Video (Koyaan's Blog).
See also	Chris Hanson (real name) reported on his detailed analysis of the COLB image file posted on the Obama website. Hanson did not directly address Polarik's claims; however, he conducted his own analysis and concluded that the file was not manipulated improperly.		See Barack Obama Birth Certificate Image Tampering Analysis (from www.xenon.arcticus.com)
See also	Click here for other reports that have concluded that Obama's COLB is authentic and/or that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Note, however, that these reports do not expressly address Polarik's specific claims or reports, although some discuss investigations and analysis of the COLB and their determination that the COLB is authentic.		See Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic.
Conclusion: Unclear
See discussion above.

Back to Top

Federal Rules of Evidence re: Expert Witnesses

DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal information found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney posted online, we will post that information. As noted above, Mr. Berg's complaint alleges that "three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts" evaluated the COLB posted on Obama's website. Therefore, the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702-705 will apply to determine their "expert witness" qualifications as well as their "expert witness" testimony. Rule 702. Testimony by Experts If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Notes Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their  prejudicial effect.  Notes Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. (b) No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone. Notes Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. Notes

Back to Top

Is Obama's COLB Forged? Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic

As outlined in other posts (here), Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that "[A]s posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was in fact a forgery." (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

We are providing special pages for each of the self-identified experts and their findings.  Thus, we include here the information we have located to date which indicates that, in fact, the COLB reflecting Obama's Hawaii Birth (and published on the Obama campaign website) is authentic.

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

---

12/30 Update:  Information re: Hawaii DOH statements updated per recently received links/info.

11/3 Update:  We have received information that calls into doubt the veracity of a report regarding a VA lawsuit and, therefore, have removed striking through it pending confirmation. Oct. 30 Update: Virginia Board of Elections reportedly submits "original" COLB to Virginia Court.

Documentation the COLB Reflecting Obama's Hawaii Birth is authentic

The following reports indicate that Obama's COLB, reflecting that he was born in Hawaii, is authentic:  The Hawaii Department of Health (Original Birth Certificate) - 12/30 Updated/New The Hawaii Department of Health (COLB) The Sunday Advertisor [Honolulu, Hawaii] The Star Bulletin [Hawaii] World Net Daily FactCheck.org

The Hawaii Department of Health Confirms that Obama Was Born in Hawaii, as Reflected on Original Birth Certificate

On October 31, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released the following press release:  "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i , along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i ." See Hawaii DOH News Release, Oct. 31, 2008 (08-93). On November 3, the Chicago Tribune's Swamp reported that Ms. Okubo (Health Department Spokeswoman, per the Press Release) confirmed in both e-mail and telephone interviews that Obama was born in Hawaii: "Seeking to squelch persistent rumors that Sen. Barack Obama isn't eligible to become president because he allegedly was born outside the United States, a Hawaiian official has confirmed she has "personally seen and verified" that the state "has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate" - meaning Obama was born in the Aloha state, and is therefore an American citizen. [Quote from Official News Release, already quoted above.] Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii? "Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying." Obama Hawaiian-born: Citizen for sure, The Swamp/Chicago Tribune, November 3, 2008. See also, e.g., Officials Verify Birth Certificate of Obama, Star-Bulletin, Nov. 1, 2008 ("The state health director said yesterday she has personally seen and verified Sen. Barack Obama's original birth certificate in an effort to address numerous requests for the document...."); Hawaii Officials Declare Obama Birth Certificate Genuine, Honolulu Advertiser, Oct. 31, 2008: "State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i. Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate."); Obama's Certificate of Birth OK, State Says; Health Director Issues Voucher in Response to 'Ridiculous' Barrage, Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1, 2008 (""This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid. Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu -- and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.")

The Hawaii Department of Health Confirms that the COLB is "A Valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate"

As reported by Amy Hollyfield of PolitiFact, "On June 13, 2008, Obama's campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com. The site is a direct response to allegations about Obama that won't go away: He's Muslim. He took the oath of office on a Koran. He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true. When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real. 'It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' spokesman Janice Okubo told us." See "Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter," PolitiFact.com (Jun. 27, 2008) (emphasis added). About PolitiFact. See also "Lawsuit questions Obama's eligibility for office," Washington Times, Aug. 28, 2008, which reported as follows: "Backers of the idea that Mr. Obama isn't a natural-born citizen say Mr. Obama's certification of live birth doesn't quell the issue. They say a certification can be obtained after birth. But the Hawaii State Department of Health said Monday that there is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID, said Alvin Onaka, a research and statistics officer at the Department of Health."

The Sunday Advertisor Published Obama's Birth Announcement in August 1961

A Honolulu, Hawaii newspaper (apparently, the "Sunday Advertiser") published an announcement of Obama's borth on August 13, 1961 - six days after his birth.  See here and here.  Also available here and here. 10/27 Update:  The Honolulu Sunday Advertiser requires proof, via official state-issued birth certificate before printing a birth announcement.  See here ("IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it."). We are awaiting written confirmation, but have received verbal confirmation that the practice in 1961 was to report on births based on Health Bureau Statistics only.

The (Hawaii) Star Bulletin Published Obama's Birth Announcement in August 1961

10/21 Update:  Thanks to a reader tip, we have located the copy of the reported Star-Bulletin announcement. See announcement here.  Also available here. Source of annoucement: In posting that annoucement, the user stated as follows: "Here's a copy I made today of the August 14th (could have been the 15th or 16th), 1961 Star Bulletin newspaper showing Obama's birth announcement stored on microfilm at the Hawaii State Library in Honolulu. I had to enlarge it to the point of losing the top of the page with the date and day in order to make it readable. The microfilm is stored in the basement of the library and was in the box marked Star Bulletin Aug 1, 1961-Aug 16, 1961. ..." See here (requires registration). 10/27 Update:  The Star-Bulletin prints birth announcements directly from the Health Department records. See here ("Each Sunday, the Star-Bulletin publishes Oahu vital statistics for marriage licenses and birth certificates filed with the state Department of Health's Vital Statistics System.") We are awaiting written confirmation, but have received oral confirmation that this practice was in place in 1961.

WorldNetDaily reports that the birth certificate is authentic.

The WorldNetDaily has also investigated the claim.  WND (a) found the document to be authentic; (b) uncovered forgeries and alterations made by the purported "experts": "A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there." See "Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'; Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims," World Net Daily (Aug. 23, 2008) (emphasis added). Given that WorldNetDaily is the publication for whom Jerome Corsi reports, it defies credibility to argue that that organization is any sort of "pro-Obama" tool. (Jerome Corsi is the person who wrote the widely-discredited anti-Obama book, The Obama Nation. See sources cited in Wikipedia* for more information regarding Mr. Corsi's politics and past publications. See also Important Note re: Wikipedia.

Factcheck.org reports that the birth certificate is authentic.

See Born in the U.S.A., Factcheck.org (Aug. 21, 2008, Updated: Aug 26, 2008; Updated Nov. 1, 2008). While some of those perpetuating the forgery allegation discount Factcheck.org as biased, we note two points: (1) See the other sources, above, which corroborate FactCheck's findings; and (2) Visit Factcheck.org and review their information and make your own judgment as to whether they're pro-Obama.  10/11 Update:  See Is Factcheck.org "in the tank for" Obama? Is Factcheck.org owned by the Chicago Annenberg Foundation?

Was Obama Born in Kenya? (Part 2 - Grandmother/Family Info)

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that Obama was born in Kenya.  So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations?     (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Updated 1/6 to add info re: statement from Sayid Obama (Uncle), saying 1987 was Obama's irst time in Kenya.

Updated 1/3 to remove duplicative information:

See also Was Obama Born in Kenya? Is Obama a Kenyan Citizen? for additional information regarding Berg's allegations that Obama was born in Kenya.

See also Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic, for information regarding Hawaii DOH confirmation of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

---

Let's break the allegations down: 

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	"...Obama's .... half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya."	Complaint ¶ 17; see also TRO Memo at 2-3.	None.
A1	12/4 Update:  Berg subsequently published two affidavits from individuals who allegedly had a conversation with Obama's grandmother, in which she reportedly stated that she was present at Obama's birth (in Kenya).	See Affidavit of Biship Ron McRae, (Oct. 30, 2008); Affidavit of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia (Oct. 30, 2008); See also YouTube audio tape of conversation, here.	Cited Affidavits.
B	"Reports reflect Obama's mother went 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."	Id; see also TRO Memo at 3.	None.
C	"[These reports also reflect that] Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."	Id.	None.

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	"Obama's .... half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	Through a variety of Google searches, we have found dozens (and dozens) of references to this alleged report, but have not located the actual report(s).	---	---
False	1/6 Update:  From Obama Uncle Confirms - not born in Kenya: "In a YouTube video, Barack Obama’s uncle, Sayid Obama, says plainly, and in English, that Barack Obama’s first time in Kenya was in 1987. The following transcript starts at 3:30 in the video. Narrator: Barack Obama first came to visit his father’s grave back in 1987 Sayid Obama: It was his first time in Kenya. I can say it was kind of happiness mixed with some sadness because he was a person coming to see this site of his family and at the same time coming to see where his father was buried." (Emphasis supplied in original transcripted statement).	YouTube Link; Transcript re: same (ObamaConspiracy.org).	---
Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
1/6 Update:  As noted above, while we have found dozens of references to reports that Obama's half- brother and sister claim he was born in Kenya, we have not located the actual reports. Additionally, Obama's uncle, Sayid Obama, has stated that Obama's first time in Kenya was in 1987. Therefore, we conclude at this time that the allegation is unsubstantiated. As noted above, we are actively soliciting additional evidence and, if such information is submitted to us, we will update this post accordingly. 12/4 Update:  A YouTube Video is now available regarding the reported call to Sarah Obama, Obama's step-grandmother.  It is available here. Listening to the full tape, particularly from 5:50-8:00, makes clear that Ms. Obama clarifies that Obama was born in Hawaii.  See also Blog or Die for some interesting analysis of the tape.  (We've uncovered no information regarding the reported claims of Obama's half brother and half sister.)

Back to Top

A1	Obama's grandmother on his father's side ...claims Obama was born in Kenya.
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	YouTube full audio of alleged conversation with Step-Grandmother.	---
Conclusion: Misleading; Audio Tape of Alleged Conversation makes clear that Obama's step-grandmother indicated Obama (Jr. )was born in Hawaii.
12/4 Update:  A YouTube Video is now available regarding the reported call to Sarah Obama, Obama's step-grandmother.  It is available here. Listening to the full tape, particularly from 5:50-8:00, makes clear that Ms. Obama clarifies that Obama was born in Hawaii.  See also Blog or Die for some interesting analysis of the tape.  1/6 Update:  See also YouTube Video of Obama's uncle saying that 1987 was the first time Obama was in Kenya, referenced in A, above..

Back to Top

B	"Reports reflect Obama's mother went 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."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	---	---
Conclusion: We have found no evidence of this alleged report.
Through a variety of Google searches, we have found dozens (and dozens) of references to this alleged report, but have not located the actual report(s).  Therefore, we conclude at this time that the allegation must be false. As noted above, we are actively soliciting additional evidence and, if such information is submitted to us, we will update this post accordingly.

Back to Top

C	"These reports also reflect that] Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	See Conclusion.	---	---
Conclusion: We have found no evidence of this alleged report.
Through a variety of Google searches, we have found dozens (and dozens) of references to this alleged report, but have not located the actual report(s).  Therefore, we conclude at this time that the allegation must be false. As noted above, we are actively soliciting additional evidence and, if such information is submitted to us, we will update this post accordingly.

Back to Top

Mr. Berg's Standing Problem

(Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

---

9/24 Update: As previously noted,

"An Aside:  It bears mentioning that Mr. Berg has a "standing" problem. The upshot is that in order to bring a complaint on constitutional grounds, the plaintiff must have "standing" to sue, which means that s|he must allege an "injury in fact" that bears a relation to the defendant's conduct, and for which a judicial decision will address the injury. Courts have consistently held that voters do not have standing to sue on the grounds that a candidate is ineligible for the position for which s|he is running."

This update has two parts: 

1. Obama/DNC File Motion to Dismiss on Standing Grounds (and other grounds)

First, as expected, Sen. Obama and the DNC filed a motion to dismiss Berg's complaint today. The motion is not yet avilable on Justia, but we expect it to be uploaded there shortly. In the meantime, America's Right has a good summary and a link to a copy of the motion here.

In short, Sen. Obama and the DNC allege that under well-settled precedent, Berg lacks standing to sue, for the same reaons that the court in Hollander v. McCain dismissed the case challenging McCain's eligilbility earlier this year (discussed below).

---

2. Recent Cases Addressing the Same Issue

Second, we were informed that another federal court also has considered this issue, in another case brought to challenge Senator McCain's qualifications for the presidency. We are revising this post to include information from both of those cases.

Robinson v. Sec'y of State et al

Hollander v. McCain et al

---

Robinson v. Sec'y of State et al, C 08-03836 WHA (N.D. Ca. D.Ct.)

Pleadings available here.

The Complaint

In Robinson, plaintiff sued in his capacity as Presidential Elector and Chairperson-Elect of the American Independent Party, challenging John McCain's eligibility to serve as president. According to the complaint, McCain is not a "natural born Citizen" because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (to American parents). Thus, McCain is not eligible to hold the office of President under Article II, § 1 of the Constitution. To review the entire complaint, see here (PDF).

The Dismissal of the Complaint - available here (PDF).

The Northern California federal district court dismissed this case on the grounds that Mr. Robinson lacks standing to sue.

According to the court, the Constitution vests Congress -- not individual voters, or even opposing candidates -- with the final authority re: the qualifications of the Presidency.:

Article II prescribes that each state shall appoint, in the manner directed by the state’s legislature, the number of presidential electors to which it is constitutionally entitled. The Twelfth Amendment prescribes the manner in which the electors appointed by the states shall in turn elect the president:

“[t]he electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . . and they shall . . . transmit [their votes] sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15 directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” Ibid. The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

Ibid. The Twentieth Amendment further provides,

“if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300–02 (1998)."

Order Dismissing Complaint at 4-5 (PDF).

---

Hollander v. McCain et al, Civil No. 08-cv-99-JL (N.H. D.Ct.).

Pleadings available here.

The Complaint

As with Robinson, the Hollander, plaintiff also challenged Sen. McCain's eligibility to serve as President of the United States, due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone (to American parents).  However, Hollander filed the case on his own behalf as a citizen/qualifed voter of the United States. To review the entire complaint, see here (PDF).

The Dismissal of the Complaint - available here (PDF).

The New Hampshire federal district court dismissed this case on the grounds that Mr. Hollander lacks standing to sue. As the court noted, "So-called  Article III standing has three requirements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered  an injury in fact, (2) that injury bears a causal connection to the defendant s challenged conduct, and (3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the plaintiff with redress from that injury.

The court recognized that "a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing in the election." Id. at 11.

However, the court also recognized that "that notion of "competitive standing" has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate."  Id..  Thus, the court continued:

"So voters have no standing to complain about the participation of an ineligible candidate in an election, even if it results in the siphoning of votes away from an eligible candidate they prefer. See id. As Gottlieb reasons, only the eligible candidate, or his or her political party, can claim standing based on that injury.
***
McCain's candidacy for the presidency, whatever his eligibility, is "hardly a restriction on voters' rights" because it in no way prevents them from voting for somebody else. In fact, Hollander alleges that he did just that in the New Hampshire Republican primary."

Order Dismissing Complaint at 12-13 (PDF).

After discussion (and rejection) of other standing claims, the court concluded:

"... Hollander remains free to cast his vote for any candidate he considers eligible, including by writing in whichever Republican candidate he believes should be nominated instead of McCain, and to have that vote counted just as much as those cast for the party's official nominee, so his right to the franchise remains intact. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) (defining right as "to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice" without "debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote"). Difficult choices on Election Day do not translate into judicially cognizable injuries.

This is not to demean the sincerity of Hollander's challenge to McCain's eligibility for the presidency; as discussed supra Part II, that challenge has yet to be definitively settled, and, as a number of commentators have concluded, arguably cannot be without a constitutional amendment. What is settled, however, is that an individual voter like Hollander lacks standing to raise that challenge in the federal courts."

Id at 17-18. (PDF)

Was Obama Born in Kenya? Is Obama a Kenyan Citizen?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that Obama was born in Kenya and/or is a Kenyan citizen.   (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Updated 1/3 to remove duplicative information:

See also Was Obama Born in Kenya? (Part 2) for additional information regarding Berg's allegations that Obama was born in Kenya, including information regarding the "grandmother" tapes.

See also Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic, for information regarding Hawaii DOH confirmation of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

---

Let's break the allegations down:

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	"Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal was a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 ...	Complaint ¶ 20; see also TRO Memo at 3.	None.
B	... stating the GOP sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya and ...	Id.	None.
C	[Did the GOP, in fact, send a research team to Mombasa, Kenya?]	---	---
D	... located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen.	Id.	None.
E	[Did the GOP, in fact, locate a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen?]	---	---
F	At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony.	Complaint ¶ 21; see also TRO Memo at 3.	None.
G	Legal Conclusion: Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963.	Complaint ¶ 23; see also TRO Memo at 3.	Citations to Support Legal Argument: None.
H	Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin ...	Id.	None.
I	...states Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship.	Complaint ¶ 23; see also TRO Memo at 3-4.	None.
J	[Did Obama, in fact, need to renounce any alleged Kenyan citizenship?]	---	---
K	Andy Martin further states [that] on Obama's Senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father.	Complaint ¶ 23; see also TRO Memo at 4.	None.
L	[Does Obama's Senate website actually address dual nationality?]	---	---
M	[Andy Martin further states that] Obama obviously knows, because his father told the [sic] Obama, that he (Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.	Id.	None.
N	[Did "Obama obviously know[], because his father told the [sic] Obama, that he (Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality"]	---	---
O	Legal Conclusion: If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). --------------- The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. ...	Complaint ¶ 24; see also TRO Memo at 4.	Citations to Support Legal Conclusion: Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.), approved (Att y Gen. 1944).
P	At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) ....	Id.	None.
Q	Legal Conclusion: Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.	Complaint ¶ 25; see also TRO Memo at 4.	Citations to Support Legal Argument: None.

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	"Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal was a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 ...
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	"Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report."	See The Online Journal.	---
Conclusion: True, according to Online Journal
Berg's allegation is consistent with the The Online Journal's description.

Back to Top

B	"... stating the GOP sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya and ..."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	"GOP dirty tricks operatives dispatched to Kenya to dig up any useful "dirt" on Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, Jr., and his late Kenyan father Barack Obama, Sr......"	See Wayne Madsen, "GOP dirty tricks machine readies a charge that Obama is not eligible to be president," OnlineJournal.com (June 8, 2008).	---
Conclusion: True
Madsen's online article does, indeed, contain the statement paraphrased by Berg. Note, however, that Berg's description is incomplete, as shown below.

Back to Top

C	[Did the GOP, in fact, send a research team to Mombasa, Kenya?]
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
????	Other than Madsen's article, and many blogs referring to the information contained in the article, we have found no evidence that the GOP did, in fact, send a research team to Kenya.	---	---
Conclusion: Unclear
Although we can find no evidence of such a trip, other than Madsen's assertion, political parties may elect to withhold information until a time they deem politically expedient, it is possible that this trip did take place and the GOP has just not yet confirmed it. Thus, we do not know whether this statement is true or not.

Back to Top

D	"[Madsen reported that the GOP] ... located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen. "
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
Part True	"GOP dirty tricks operatives dispatched to Kenya .... believe they have found a "smoking gun." In this case, it is a birth certificate from the Kenyan city of Mombasa registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr., on August 4, 1961. However, the registration is a common practice in African countries whose citizens abroad have families with foreign nationals. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to his Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya. False:  Madsen's article does NOT reference the "Maternity Hospital," as alleged by Berg.	See Wayne Madsen, "GOP dirty tricks machine readies a charge that Obama is not eligible to be president," OnlineJournal.com (June 8, 2008).	We have not yet found evidence to support or refut Madsen's contention that such registration is a common practice.
Conclusion: True, but incomplete and misleading
Madsen's online article does, indeed, contain the statement paraphrased by Berg. Note, however, that Berg's description of the artricle fails to include the bolded information shown above.  Thus, while Berg purports to rely on Madsen's article to "prove" one potentially relevant fact, he disingenuously fails to include that part of Madsen's report that conflicts with his theory.

Back to Top

E	"[Did the GOP, in fact, locate a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen?]"
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
????	Other than Madsen's article, and many blogs referring to the information contained in the article, we have found no evidence that the GOP did, in fact, locate a certificate registaring the birth of Barack Obama Jr. at a Maternity Hospital a research team to Kenya.	---	---
Conclusion: Factual Allegation Likely False; Not Supported by Any Verifiable Facts
Although we can find no evidence that the GOB located a Kenya "certificate registering the birth" of Obama (other than Madsen's unsourced assertion), political parties may elect to withhold information until a time they deem politically expedient.  Thus, it is possible that the GOP located such information and just has note yet released it. Thus, we do not know whether this statement is true or not. See also Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic, for information regarding Hawaii DOH confirmation of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

Back to Top

F	"At the time of Obama's birth in [August 4.] 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. "
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	"British exploration of East Africa in the mid-1800s eventually led to the establishment of Britain's East African Protectorate in 1895. *** Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year joined the Commonwealth."	See U.S. Department of State; see also Kenyan Embassy: History of Kenya	---
Conclusion: True, per US State Department
According to the US State Department and multiple sites, this statement is accurate.

Back to Top

G	LEGAL ARGUMENT: "Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. "
DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal informaton found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information. FactCheck.org analyzes this issue as follows: When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children: British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: 1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963... 2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963. As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct. But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.  9/8 Update: The U.S. State Department website confirms that: Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad (hat tip: 21stCenturyThinker, at FreeRepublic.com.)
Conclusion: Appears to be Correct Conclusion of Law
As discussed above, the legal analysis found to date is consistent with Berg's allegation. Note, however, that that same analysis concludes that Obama lost his UK/Kenyan citizenship long ago and, therefore, is not a dual citizen.

Back to Top

H	"Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin ..."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	According to Mr. Martin's web blog, he is an "Internet writer/columnist/investigative journalist, located in Chicago, Illinois.	Mr. Martin's "About Me" Page	---
Conclusion: True, according to Mr. Martin
Mr. Martin describes himself as Berg alleges. For more information regarding the veracity of claims made by Mr. Martin, consider the sources cited in Wikepedia regarding him. See also Wikipedia as Evidence for cautionary note.

Back to Top

I	"[Andy Martin]...states Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	In a press release announcing an upcoming press conference, Mr. Martin stated the following: "... Andy Martin will hold a news conference Friday, February 9th at 11:00 A.M. to announce that U. S. Senator Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya and became a citizen of Kenya under the Independence Constitution of Kenya in 1963. Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. He is also a U. S. Citizen. "Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. He has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. On his senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father. Obama obviously knows, because his father told him, that he also held/holds Kenyan nationality. "Friday we will blow Obama out of the water with disclosure of his lifelong deceit and concealment. ...And it is inconceivable that Obama Sr. never told his son that he was a Kenyan national. Why has 'junior' hidden this information for decades?" Martin will demand Friday. "The American people, when deciding who to support for president, have a right to know if their 'president' is also a citizen of Kenya and owes dual loyalty to Kenya because he has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. "Further, I defy Obama or any of his flacks to defeat or deny the historical constitutional facts on which our blockbuster disclosures are based. We have nailed Barry O with his own hidden truths once again."	Senator Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya, Part One, by Andrew Martin on Political Gateway, Feb. 8, 2007.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: True, as far as it goes.
Mr. Martin made the allegations that Mr. Berg alleges he made. Note, however, that efforts to locate a transcript, any report on the press conference, or "Part Two," with details and the promised evidence to support claims made in Part One" have failed. This may be due to the legal analysis reported by FactCheck.org, discussed above, which demonstrates that Mr. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically and, thus, was not required to renounce that citizenship. For more information regarding the veracity of claims made by Mr. Martin, consider the sources cited in Wikepedia regarding him. See also Wikipedia as Evidence for cautionary note.

Back to Top

J	LEGAL ARGUMENT: [Did Obama *need to* renounce any alleged Kenyan citizenship?]
DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal informaton found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information. As discussed above, FactCheck.org has analyzed the law as follows:  But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.
Conclusion: Appears to be WRONG Conclusion of Law
As discussed above, FactCheck.org has analyzed the law and determined that Obama lost Kenyan citizenship when he became an adult. Thus, there was no "need" to renounce it.

Back to Top

K	"Andy Martin further states [that] on Obama's Senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	In a press release announcing an upcoming press conference, Mr. Martin stated the following: "... On his senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father. Obama obviously knows, because his father told him, that he also held/holds Kenyan nationality. ..." [For quote in context, see above.]	Senator Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya, Part One, by Andrew Martin on Political Gateway, Feb. 8, 2007.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: True, as far as it goes.
Mr. Martin made the allegations that Mr. Berg alleges he made. Note, however, that efforts to locate a transcript, any report on the press conference, or "Part Two," with details and the promised evidence to support claims made in Part One" have failed. This may be due to the legal analysis reported by FactCheck.org, discussed above, which demonstrates that Mr. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically and, thus, was not required to renounce that citizenship. For more information regarding the veracity of claims made by Mr. Martin, consider the sources cited in Wikepedia regarding him. See also Wikipedia as Evidence for cautionary note.

Back to Top

L	[Does Obama's Senate website actually address dual nationality?]
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
????	Unknown - See Conclusion	---	---
Conclusion: Circular Argument & Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
Mr. Martin failed to identify what specific portion of Mr. Obama's website he felt was "tapdancing," in the cited press release. Moreover, because we have not been able to locate a transcript, any report on the press conference, or "Part Two," with details and the promised evidence to support claims made in Part One" have failed.  Thus, it is impossible to analyze the accuracy of this claim.

Back to Top

M	"[Andy Martin further states that] Obama obviously knows, because his father told the [sic] Obama, that he (Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	In a press release announcing an upcoming press conference, Mr. Martin stated the following: "... Obama obviously knows, because his father told him, that he also held/holds Kenyan nationality." [For quote in context, see above.]	Senator Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya, Part One, by Andrew Martin on Political Gateway, Feb. 8, 2007.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: True, as far as it goes.
Mr. Martin made the allegations that Mr. Berg alleges he made. Note, however, that efforts to locate a transcript, any report on the press conference, or "Part Two," with details and the promised evidence to support claims made in Part One" have failed. This may be due to the legal analysis reported by FactCheck.org, discussed above, which demonstrates that Mr. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically and, thus, was not required to renounce that citizenship. For more information regarding the veracity of claims made by Mr. Martin, consider the sources cited in Wikepedia regarding him. See also Wikipedia as Evidence for cautionary note.

Back to Top

N	[Did Obama obviously know[], "because his father told the [sic] Obama, that he (Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality"]
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
????	See Conclusion	---	---
Conclusion: Unclear
Mr. Martin failed to identify what evidence he had to support the contention that (a) Mr. Obama Sr. told Mr. Obama Jr. that he had/has dual citizenship; or (b) that by virtue of his father's alleged statement, he "knew" of such citizenship. Moreover, because we have not been able to locate a transcript, any report on the press conference, or "Part Two," with details and the promised evidence to support claims made in Part One" have failed.  Thus, it is impossible to analyze the accuracy of this claim.

Back to Top

O	LEGAL ARGUMENT: "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14).
[Berg states this basic conclusion at least two different ways in his pleadings. Alternative statement:  "Because Obama's mother was only 18 at thie time of his birth, she] did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a 'natural born' citizen. Obama would have only been naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified and/or eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S."] DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal informaton found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information. Statute: Mr. Berg cites Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b) to support this claim, but this appears to be an error, as §1401(b) provides as follows: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;" That provision has no apparent relevance to Mr. Berg's claims. It appears that Mr. Berg meant to reference 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which currently provides as follows: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than [10] five years, at least [5] two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:..... According to Legislative Notes, Pub. L. 99, 653 (1986) substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five." According to the Notes, this amendment applies to "persons born or after November 14, 1986." Case Law: Mr. Berg cites Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Attorney Gen. 1944).  A copy of the actual case has not yet been located.
Conclusion: Unclear, but irrelevant.
We have found no source yet supporting Mr. Berg's interpretation of the law, although Snopes, the urban legends website asserts that the claim is bogus. See Snopes - Native Son. While Snopes has no legal analysis, we agree with its conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii, given that (a) there is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya; and (b) there is evidence, "real" evidence that would be accepted by Court that Obama was born in Hawaii. Therefore, even if the legal analysis is correct, the conclusion that the law operates to deprive Obama of U.S. citizenship fails.

Back to Top

P	"At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) ..."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True?	According to Time Magazine and multiple other sources, Ann Durham, Barack Obama's mother, was born November 29, 1942. We found no references disputing this birthdate. According to Mr. Obama's birth certificate,* he was born August 4, 1961.	"The Story of Barack Obama's Mother," Time Magazine, Apr. 9, 2008; Barack Obama's Birth Certicate, as posted on www.barackobama.com.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Apparently True
Assuming the above-referenced statements are true, Ms. Durham was 18 at the time of Mr. Obama's birth. *Note:  We are well aware of Mr. Berg's allegations that the birth certificate displayed on Mr. Obama's website is a forgery. We will address those claims in an upcoming post. See also, discussion above, regarding evidential weight of currently-existing information

Back to Top

Q	"Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya."
DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal informaton found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information. See G, above.
Conclusion: Appears to be Correct Conclusion of Law
As discussed above (G), the only legal analysis found to date is consistent with Berg's allegation.

Back to Top

Does Obama have a Canadian Birth Certificate?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip Berg alleged, in his lawsuit against Obama, that  that a  Canadian Birth Certificate published on the internet, showing "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."  (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

10/7 Update:  Berg filed a proposed Amended Complaint on October 6.  In that complaint, he drops references to the Canadian birth certificate.  We retain this entry for historical purposes.

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
"There is a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961."		Complaint ¶ 22; see also TRO Memo at 3.	None

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

"There is a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	It is true that a (anti-Obama) website posted a birth certificate, with the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and with the date of birth shown to be August 23, 1961," as alleged by Berg. However, the birth certificate is clearly and expressly, a spoof: "So this is all the Barack Obama BC birth certificate mess everyone needs to help him out with as he is more qualified with the above birth certificate to be Canadian Prime Minster than the one DailyKos has issued in June 2007 in being an American President. At least with the above, there is probably a real one in Vancouver to back it up. Barack Obama, BC, (British Columbia) BCE, (Before Conning Everyone) and AD (Angelic Diety). He seems to be a man of all history, past, present and future depending on the script.  Post Script: One might note that Dudley Dooright signed Barack's birth certificate, so we know this one is real too as it is posted online."	See Obama's 'Birth Certificate', Rense.com	Note that the photo at issue is not of a "birth certificate" for "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." Rather, it is for "Barack Hussein Mohammad Obama Jr."
--	We could find no other "birth certificate" purporting to be a Canadian Birth Certificate, with the name "Barack Hussein Obama Jr." posted on the internet.
Conclusion: Demonstrably False
As noted above, it is clear - both on the face of the actual photo looking like a birth certificate, and in the article publishing the photo -- that the document is not real - that it was a spoof.

Back to Top

Did Obama use an Indonesian Passport to Visit Pakistan?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip Berg alleged, in his lawsuit against Obama, that Obama used an Indonesian Passport at one point.  (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

The Berg Complaint Allegations		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	"Investigation further showed in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan ...	Complaint ¶ ¶33, 60, 68. See also Writ Petition (US Supreme Court) at 14-15.	None.
B	...using his Indonesian passport."	Id.	None.
C	"At the time of travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty (20) years old."	Id.	None.
C1	Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. Citizens.	Writ Petition (US Supreme Court) at 14
D	"He was well aware ....	Complaint ¶ ¶33, 60, 68.	None.
E	"... he maintained his Indonesia citizenship, and failed to regain his United States citizenship."	Id.	None.
F	"Indonesia does [did] not allow dual citizenship."	Id.	None.
G	"Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States Passport."	Id.	None.

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	"Investigation further showed in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan ...
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	"At a fundraiser in San Francisco, Ca., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., claimed he had more world experience than his rivals, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and introduced a new bit of biographical information. *** "You do that in eighty countries," Obama said, "You don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign. So I asked the Obama campaign for more information. Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.	See Jake Tapper, "Obama's College Trip to Pakistan," ABCNews -Political Punch, Apr. 8, 2008. About Jake Tapper.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Likely True; Supported by Obama Statements
Given that the ABC/Jake Tapper article contains direct quotes from Obama, and that the reporter obtained confirmation of the asserted fact from the Obama campaign, it appears more likely than not that Obama would not dispute this allegation.

Back to Top

B	"...Obama traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	None. Over the past several weeks, multiple bloggers have posted entries saying something to the effect of, "I am getting reports from different sources that Obama traveled to Pakistan in `81 with an Indonesian passport." However, the bloggers provide no documents, references to documents, or any other actual facts to support the allegation. Recently, anonymous poster(s), posted a message on multiple discussion boards to the effect that Obama admits he used an Indonesian passport. None of these post provide any evidence/citation to news story to support this claim. However, the poster(s) provide no documents, references to documents, or any other actual facts to support the allegation.	See, e.g., "Obama s Dual Citizenship Disaster," Stop the ACLU, Aug. 11, 2008. About Stop the ACLU.	See Conclusion.
False	"There are reports -- unconfirmed and largely from the same coterie that produced the Techdude fiasco[*] -- that either Republicans or Clinton operatives have scoured the hinterlands of Indonesia, Kenya, and even Pakistan -- where Obama is alleged to have entered using a non-American passport."	See "LOLo: [O]ne certificate theory crashes but new Obama citizenship doubts arise," IsraelInsider.com (Aug. 12, 2008). About Israel Insider.	*The "Techdude fiasco" is a reference to Techdude, the purported forensic expert who alleged to have proven that the birth certificate produced by Obama was forged. As noted in the article, " "The notorious "techdude" analysis is revealed as so much hot air, but that has not stopped the spread of theories about what Barack Obama may have to hide."
False	"A WND investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan. However, WND noted that Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule and that it was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance -- meaning, it would have been easier to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport."	See Drew Zahn, "Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy' WorldNetDaily.com, August 23, 2008. About WorldNetDaily.	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Likely False; Not Supported by Any Verifiable Facts
Given that no evidence, or facts that could lead to evidence, has been reported by any verifiable source, it seems highly likely that this allegation is false.

Back to Top

C	"At the time of travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty (20) years old."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	"...Obama said, "...So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." *** Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.	See Jake Tapper, "Obama's College Trip to Pakistan," ABCNews -Political Punch, Apr. 8, 2008 (accessed Aug. 23, 2008).	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Likely True; Supported by Obama Statements
Given that the ABC/Jake Tapper article contains direct quotes from Obama, and that the reporter obtained confirmation of the asserted fact from the Obama campaign, it appears more likely than not that Obama would not dispute this allegation.

Back to Top

C1	(At the time Obama traveled to Pakistan), Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. Citizens.
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	A contemporaneous NYTimes article stated expressly that travel visas were available (and necessary) for Americans. We note that it appears that at least some Travel Advisories were issued for Pakistan. For example, in 1987, a travel advisory was issued, reported as follows: "Pakistan. Several foreigners have been kidnapped in Baluchistan. Those going outside the city of Quetta should travel in daylight and in groups. Avoid travel in rural parts of Sind province, especially the Dadu and Larkana districts; bandits have robbed and abducted travelers there."	See Barbara Crossette, "Lahore, A Survivor with a Bittersweet History," New York Times, June 14, 1981 (in article about travel to Lahore, Pakistan, noting that: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports.").	See Conclusion.
	1/26 Update:  The U.S. State Department Travel Advisory to Pakistan in 1981 confirms the newspaper account: "NO. 81-33A Travel Advisory Passport Services/Bureau of Consular Affa[irs] Department of State/Wahington. D.C. 205__ AUGUST 17, 1981 TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLO[WING] UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS: 30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS [FOR] TOURISTS ONLY. AS THESE VISAS ARE RARELY EXTENDED BEYOND THE 30 DAY TIME PER[IOD,] TOURISTS PLANNING TO STAY LONGER SHOULD SECURE VISAS BEFORE COMING TO PAKIS[TAN.] ***"	See U.S. State Department Travel Advisory to Pakistan (hat tip: ObamaConsiracy.org)	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Likely False; Contradicted by Contemporaneous Reporting and Not Supported by any Verifiable Facts
We have found no evidence of any State Department Travel Ban to Pakistan in 1981 and, in fact, a contemporaneous NYTimes article stated that travel visas were available (and necessary) for Americans. 1/26 Update: The US State Department Advisory directly confirms that US citizens could obtain visas to Pakistan in 1981.

Back to Top

D	"*He was well aware* he maintained his Indonesia citizenship, and failed to regain his United States citizenship."
What's Your Evidence (i.e., that Obama had actual knowledge of his alleged Indonesian citizenship)?		Citation	Notes
False	None.	none found.	I could find no allegations that Obama had personal, actual knowledge that he had maintained his Indonesian citizenship and/or failed to regain his United States citizenship at the time he allegedly traveled to Pakistan in 1981.
Conclusion: Likely False; Not Supported by Any Verifiable Facts
Given that we cannot even find such an allegation (except in reference to Berg's complaint), much less any verifiable facts, it is reasonable to conclude that this allegation is false.

Back to Top

E	"He was well aware he maintained his Indonesia citizenship, and failed to regain his United States citizenship."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
Initial Note: This assumes facts not in evidence -- i.e., It assumes that Obama was, at one point, an Indonesian citizen. (See Indonesian Citizenship for more info); and It assumes that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship at some point. (See U.S. Citizenship for more info). That being said, the following information may be relevant to this allegation.
False	None.	none found.	See Conclusion.
False	"If Obama indeed possessed Indonesian citizenship as a child, it is unlikely he retains such citizenship. The country's bylaws require any Indonesian citizen living abroad for more than five years to formally declare his intention to return, otherwise risk losing his citizenship status. The law does not necessarily mean Indonesian citizenship would be immediately lost. The law can be overruled by ministerial order." "An investigation into Indonesian citizenship law and a review of Obama's biography and travels suggest the Illinois senator at one point may have been a citizen of Indonesia. That would not necessarily disqualify Obama to run for president, but it could raise loyalty concerns."	See Aaron Klein, "Was young Obama Indonesian Citizen?," WorldNetDaily, Aug. 17, 2008 (Accessed Aug. 23, 2008). About World Net Daily.	Note that the article does not conclude or even adopt the proposition that Obama had Indonesian citizenship; it merely raises the possiblity that he may have had such citzenship.
Conclusion: Factual Allegation Assumes Facts Not In Evidence
As noted above, this allegation assumes facts not in evidence/lacks foundation. Stated another way, Berg must first prove that Obama was an Indonesian citizen before he can successfully assert that Obama maintained that citizenship (see Indonesian Citizenship for more info); and Berg first must prove that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship before he can successfully assert that Obama failed to regain that citizenship (see U.S. Citizenship for more info).
Conclusion: Factual Allegation Likely False; Not Supported by Any Verifiable Facts
Given that no evidence, or facts tending to lead to evidence has been reported, it is reasonable to conclude that this allegation is false. Moreover, according to WorldNetDaily -- which is hardly an Obama apologist - even assuming that Obama may have once been an Indonesian citizen, he likely lost that citizenship.
Note re: Legal Argument
DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal informaton found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information. Re: the legal conclusion stated in the WorldNetDaily article ... First, Indonesian law may be wholly irrelevant to this inquiry as, under a choice of law analysis, the Court may well apply U.S. law to this issue. See, e.g., here and here for more information. Second, the article contains a legal conclusion. I am not aware of any analysis (with applicable citations), from an attorney or legal scholar to verify this conclusion. 9/30 Update:  See also the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355 (available as PDF here), which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents (or any other actions of his parents), so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21.

Back to Top

F	"Indonesia does [did] not allow dual citizenship."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
True	According to the U.S. State Department, Indonesian law does not recognize dual nationality for adults over 18 years of age. Because of this, U.S. citizens who are also documented as Indonesian nationals may experience difficulties with immigration formalities in Indonesia. *** In July 2006 the Indonesian Parliament passed new legislation allowing children under age 18 to maintain a foreign nationality as well as Indonesian citizenship. Parents whose children hold both Indonesian and U.S. citizenship may experience difficulties with entry and exit immigration procedures until the new law is fully implemented.	U.S. State Department, Indonesia: Country Specific Information, (emphasis added)	See Conclusion.
Conclusion: Inaccurate Statement as Written, but "fixable"
Precision matters in court documents. Here, Berg alleges that "Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship." However, it appears, at least, that Indonesian law now does permit such dual citizenship for individuals under 18. That being said, giving the benefit of the doubt to Berg and assuming that he meant to say that Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship during the relevant time .....
Note re: Legal Argument
DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal informaton found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney, we will post that information. Re: the legal conclusion that Indonesian law [did not] permit dual citizenship. First, Indonesian law may be wholly irrelevant to this inquiry as, under a choice of law analysis, the Court may well apply U.S. law to this issue. See, e.g., here and here for more information. Second, the article contains a legal conclusion. The "credientials" of the author and/or cited law firm have not been verified.  Moreover, I am unaware of any analysis (with applicable citations), from an attorney or legal scholar applying the new law to the alleged facts at issue in this case.

Back to Top

G	"Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States Passport."
What's Your Evidence?		Citation	Notes
False	None.	None.	As noted above, there is no evidence, or facts leading to evidence, to support Berg's assertion that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan.
Conclusion: Circular Argument & Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
Berg apparently offers this allegation to support his other allegation that Obama had Indonesian citizenship and lost his U.S. citizenship. However, as noted above, there is no evidence, or facts leading to evidence, to support Berg's assertion that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan. 1/28 Update:  Moreover, the US State Department's 1981 Advisory expressly stated that Pakistani travel was permitted and that a US 30-Day visa for such travel was required. Moreover, this allegation assumes facts not in evidence/lacks foundation. Stated another way, Berg must first prove that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, before he can successfully assert that Obama needed to regain it. (See U.S. Citizenship for more info).

Back to Top