What's Your Evidence?

Berg v. Obama Citizenship Lawsuit: Status & Summary (Archive Link)

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

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

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