With Supreme Court Conference Looming, a Q&A with Philip Berg

At approximately 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2008, I was in the Clerk of Court's office in the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia doing part of my job as a legal writer and reading the civil cases that had been filed that day. From about 15 to 20 feet away, I overheard a guy in a suit talking to an intake clerk about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. After the man left, the clerk told me that I should probably take a look at the complaint.

I am a conservative, through and through, and it is fair to say that I will not be pleased to see Barack Obama in the White House. Still, upon reading that complaint, I realized that regardless of political ideology, and indeed regardless of the veracity of the claims put forth in the complaint, this case could very well be big news.

By the time I got home and started writing what I hoped would, at least initially, be an objective enough piece so as not to betray my own bias, I realized that at least for that night I was perhaps the only person in the country--besides the court and filing attorney--with a copy of the complaint. Up until that day, at this Web site barely nine months old, I was thrilled to see 250 daily hits. Within the first hour after posting the original story, the site had received 1,500. The next day, we hit 50,000. Since then, America's Right has received more than two million visitors.

Since deciding to establish the site almost a year ago, I've wanted America's Right to be about conservative values and thought. Not rumor. Not conspiracy. Not anything but opinion based upon fact. Thankfully, since Philip Berg's lawsuit against Barack Obama has come to light, I've been able to exponentially grow the audience for this Web site, and am delighted to be expanding it by bringing in new writers. However, I've also struggled to stay as objective and as realistic as I possibly could, and resigned myself to resisting conspiratorial temptation and predominately covering only that which could be verified by me.

At the end of the day, I hope that America's Right will be seen as a destination point for conservative thought, articulated well enough by ordinary folks like you and me. In the meantime, however, as always I view the issue in question here as a valid and extremely important constitutional question, regardless of any political bent or politician. Philip Berg's case against Barack Obama reaches conference at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and, as I certainly was fortunate enough to get this issue rolling, I want to see it to its fruition in the same way I've covered it so far -- fairly.

That being said, I had some questions for Phil Berg about his recently filed interpleader action and about the case currently pending before the Supreme Court.

As an aside, despite the way he is painted by supporters and detractors alike, and despite his views on the attacks of September 11, 2001--which I absolutely abhor and he knows it--I've always found Berg to be rational and to be gracious. I spoke with him this weekend, and this is the result.



You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama. Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. We sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since.

Take for example if I adopt someone from Kenya, if I adopt a girl from Kenya, she would take my last name, Berg. And, if anything changed in the future, if she wanted to use another name for any reason, she would have to legally change that name.


Tell me about Col. Hollister.

Col. Hollister, the plaintiff, is a retired Air Force colonel, he’s about 52 years old or so, and served this country from 1978 to 1998 before being honorably discharged. During that time, when he served this country, he swore to protect America against all enemies foreign and domestic – which is interesting because, right now, we may have a domestic crisis going on.

Hollister contacted us. He’s not the only military man we’ve had contact us in hopes to help. We’ve had quite a few who, over the past few months, called to offer their support. He called us because he is perplexed. Here he is, on the Individual Ready Reserve—meaning that he is able, that he is subject to Presidential recall now and for the rest of his life—and he sees what’s going on across the world and he’s perplexed as to whether he could, if called up to serve again, follow orders from a Commander in Chief who may or may not be constitutionally eligible for that position. If Obama is sworn in on January 20th, if he takes that Oath of Office, he is usurping the powers of the president of the United States. And, when the truth comes out, and it will, it will mean that all of Obama’s laws and orders will be deemed invalid and will come back.

So Col. Hollister is perplexed. If he is called up, he has a duty to obey lawful orders from the Commander in Chief and on down the chain of command. And he would also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. He took an Oath of Enlistment to fight for and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but he’s confused because he doesn’t know who these duties will be owed to if Obama is sworn in. Is he qualified to be Commander in Chief? What if he was born in Kenya? What if he is an illegal alien?


Interpleader actions, pursuant to statute and to Federal Rules, are generally reserved for several claimants making competing claims on a certain fund or property, like an insurance policy benefit. When you told me a few days ago that you were filing an interpleader action, I didn’t understand how that would work. I still don’t. How is interpleader the right vehicle for an action against Barack Obama?

Interpleader requires property. The property here is the duties owed to a Commander in Chief. The federal courts have decided that property does not need to be tangible, it does not need to be physical property.


But, Phil ... a duty? As property? I've read hundreds of thousands of civil complaints, and never seen anything of the sort even claimed, nonetheless adjudicated.

It’s called “intangible res.” It doesn’t have to be a tract of land, or policy benefits as you said. Courts have found property to be the relationship between the landlord and a tenant, and intangible res has been the subject of interpleader before.

Listen, I will go to all efforts to find the legal way to have the truth about Barack Obama be discovered. This is the single biggest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people. Now, we’re hoping that the Supreme Court comes out with standing in one case, but we have others ready. We’re determined that the American public deserves the truth.


Stepping back for a moment and looking at that original action, at the end of this week your petition for writ of certiorari will be in conference in the United States Supreme Court. Back in August, I remember being in the room at the Clerk’s office doing my regular job when you filed this suit. At that time, did you think it would get to this point, to the Supreme Court on the eve of the inauguration?

I’ve always hoped it would, Jeff, because it is such a major issue. We are really in virgin territory, because this has never been seen before.

In this case, we really went into the details with regard to Kenya versus Hawaii versus Indonesia and what each possibility meant for Obama’s citizenship and his qualifications to be president, as opposed to the other suits where they conceded that he was born in Hawaii and depended upon the definition of the Natural Born Citizen clause.

How can you concede something with no proof of that? Sure, Obama’s provided a document on his Web site, but the document provided by Obama is deficient, if not fraudulent. We’ve shown that it was forged.

We’ve thought all along that we were on right track, and when Judge Surrick dismissed the case from district court and said that Obama was fully vetted when he wasn’t, and said that we don’t have standing, it just didn’t feel right. Obama wasn’t fully vetted. Not at all. And someone has to have standing to question whether a basic guideline in our Constitution is being upheld.

It’s been a long battle, and I am thrilled that the Supreme Court is looking at the case, especially at such a crucial time.


For those who always ask about possibilities, what can the Supreme Court do? I've addressed it before but, in your opinion, will they just look at the standing issue, or do you think there’s a chance they’ll look at the merits?

The Court can remand it to a lower court, saying that I have standing. But they can also retain jurisdiction and look at it themselves. They can grant standing and also order that the documents we’ve requested be produced. It’s the Supreme Court. If they think it has value, that it’s a question that needs to be answered, they’ll do it.

Really, I’d love to see what Obama does if he has to produce the documents we asked for. I don’t think he’d provide a fraudulent document to the Supreme Court like he did on his Web site – that would be perjury, and often times they don’t get people on the big crimes but get them on things like perjury.

But, yes, they can hear it themselves or they can remand. We’ll see.


The likelihood, of course, is that it gets denied.

Odds are odds. Sure. Still, this is a monumental hoax and the time is right for them to hear this case.


Speaking of timing, what do you think is the significance of January 9th? Is it significant? Why do you think you were the first case into the Supreme Court, but the last case out?

I don’t want to say anything to blow it, you know, but I think we’ve got a great shot. They could have thrown us out weeks ago. January 9th could very well be a significant day in all of this, because Obama will actually be president elect instead of designate.

On November 4th, he just got the popular votes. We tried to show that he shouldn’t have been on the ballot so we could avoid a constitutional crisis, but that obviously didn’t work. On December 15th, he just got the electoral votes. We pushed to stop that vote but were obviously unsuccessful. Those votes will be counted on Thursday, and barring anything drastic like a congressman standing up to protect, he will finally be President-Elect Barack Obama.


Georgia Congressman John Linder has reportedly mentioned that he might stand up to object to the counting of the electoral votes. Of course, there are so many wild rumors flying around with regard to this issue, I’ve just been numb. Still, if that’s true—and I should try to get in touch with his office—what do you make of it?

I heard about that, but like you I don’t know if it’s true or not. If it is, I think it would be great. I think all members of Congress should stand up and object. They can only ratify the vote of a qualified person, and like it or not there is an issue out there that that person may not be qualified. We’re headed for a constitutional crisis, we’re headed for a situation where Obama could be blackmailed.

People in the upper echelons know that we’re right. Obama has been vetted by the FBI and the Secret Service and other agencies responsible for that sort of thing. We have that information from people overseas. He’s been vetted, and those agencies, those people in the upper echelons know the truth. They have to. Howard Dean had an obligation, on August 22nd, a day after I filed this lawsuit, to call Obama in and ask him, “are you natural born, is there anything to this?” They know what’s going on. And there are people out there with more money than I have, far more powerful than I could ever be, and they’re finding out the truth. Certain people in this country know what’s going on, too – Dean, Michelle, Barack, and more. They should be subject to our criminal justice system.


But blackmail would--

He can be put into a position where he can be blackmailed internally and externally. This cabinet, for example, is a shock. Robert Gates? What’s to say that the defense people didn’t sit down and say something along the lines of “play ball or else?” I don’t know for sure, nobody but those in the room knows for sure, but you can’t tell me that people aren’t aware of this.

This cabinet really isn’t a cabinet of change. What’s to say that what we’re seeing is not internal blackmail? Obama has been vetted, people have found out the truth, and this is what could be happening.


Come on, Phil. Obama is a politician. He’s being pragmatic, just like someone like Ron Paul couldn’t govern completely from the right. How much of Obama’s cabinet decisions, that pragmatism, is just due to the fact that he needs, politically, to govern from the center?

Look, if you want to govern from the center … let me put it this way: People who are just elected can govern from the center after a year or two into their presidency. They don’t have to come to the center immediately. Obama didn’t have to come to the center immediately. He could really do what he wants for the first few years. He got an overwhelming vote in November, it was like a landslide. What was it, 52 … 54 percent? There’s no reason to move to the center now, is there? Other than “if you want to be president, play ball.”

He didn’t run from the center. Obama didn’t run as a guy who would choose Robert Gates. He ran as a candidate of change, and this is not a cabinet of change.


Okay. Back to the case. With the conference on the injunction a week after the conference on the petition for cert, what do you make of that? It would be moot, considering that the injunction was to stay the Electoral College vote. Do you think the scheduling is because Justice Scalia knows more about three of his colleagues than he lets on, and things that they’ll grant cert on Friday, or do you think that they’re merely putting all aspects of this case through the progressions so as to ward off future actions?

I don’t know. It could be either. It certainly is interesting. Two conferences make it unique. The order of the docket entries kind of makes it unique.

By scheduling the injunction for a week after the petition, does that mean that they are considering the injunction ahead of time? I don’t know. Either way, I’m encouraged that the case is still there, that we were the first ones in and now the last ones standing. Hopefully, the Court sees the significance of the issues, especially right now.

We’re still alive, and while we’re still alive, there’s still hope for our country.


We’re less than three weeks away from the inauguration. In retrospect, do you wish you had filed the original suit earlier?

Really, no. We did it before the Democratic National Convention, and by doing so we gave the Democratic Party a chance to properly vet Obama at that point. Because Howard Dean didn’t properly vet him, I think he’s in for collusion and other crimes. But getting back to your question, I think the real shame was that Judge Surrick delayed in issuing his opinion in the lower court. Still. We’ve moved the case on, and I think we’ve got a great shot on Friday.

Look at it this way. If I hadn’t started this case, and if you didn’t cover this case, there may have been no other cases raising these questions. The number of people in the United States, from coast to coast, who are aware of these cases is just amazing. I mean, it may just be a supermarket tabloid, but we’re on the cover of Globe magazine, I think, two weeks in a row. John Edwards’ affair started in a supermarket tabloid.

Yes, I wish that the Supreme Court ruled a month ago that we are right. But it could have been thrown out numerous times, and it hasn’t been. We’re still alive. Cards are falling into place for us, like the amazing things which fell into place and allowed the Philadelphia Eagles to get into the playoffs.

Things fell in place for the Eagles, I think things are falling in place for the nation to see resolution for this issue.


What do you make of the snowball effect this has had on a certain segment of the population, the Andy Martins of the world? I can’t help but laugh at some of the wild conspiratorial e-mails I get, but here’s a guy who calls himself an “Internet Powerhouse” and “Legendary Muckraker” in his disjointed press releases, yet for a while there he was giving you a hard time. I’ll be the first one to tell you that you could have handled things a little differently, but still -- what do you make of these people, those who go out of their way to find strange things to question Obama when a real question is right under their nose, those who feel that Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X or Marvin The Martian is really Barack Obama’s father?

Yeah, I think it’s a shame that specific people have, throughout this process, distracted from the goal. I’m not one to speak out against anybody else, but that being said I’m proud to say that we’ve stayed fairly focused on the question of whether or not Barack Obama is qualified to be president of the United States of America. We’ve done a good job maintaining that focus, for the most part, throughout the press releases, the radio interviews and more.

I don’t care how we cross the finish line, I don’t care if it is my case or someone else’s case that finally gets to the truth. We might have been first off the starting line, but that doesn’t matter. There’s no personal animosity on my part, none at all, but I do think that some people were jealous of the attention we were getting for a will. Still, it doesn’t bother me, because I’m still standing, and more importantly I’m standing firm for 330 million people.


Can I ask how much of your own money you have spent on pursuing this?

No. I lost count. My biggest loss is from the rest of my practice, where some of my clients feel neglected. You see the same thing with firms involved with big class action suits.


Let’s say for a moment that it works. Obama is deemed ineligible. What next for the country? What next for you?

I don’t know. It depends upon when Barack Obama is declared ineligible. If it happens before Thursday, it means one thing. If it happens after Thursday but before January 20th, it means another thing. If it happens after January 20th, it appears that Biden would be president, but who knows? After all, he was selected by someone who shouldn’t have been running for president and selecting vice presidents in the first place.

I just hope and pray, every night, for calm and peace in this country, and if Obama is found to be unqualified, I would urge political and cultural leaders to come forth with something like a national broadcast and appeal for peace. This was Barack Obama’s doing, this was caused by one man, and nobody else. In fact, Barack Obama himself come out and say “I’m proud to have made history on November 4th, in getting more votes than anybody else, but because of some issues with my past, I have no choice but to step down.” And he should appeal for peace and calm.


What about you?

Me? Phil Berg would just be happy with a job well done for 330 million people, and would, I don’t know, just sit back and just decide what cause is next. Even in high school, when our football team was in a three-way tie for a championship bid and was included, I led a protest to benefit our team. I’ve been fighting all my life, I’ve continued to fight while this whole thing was going on as part of the Barren Hill Volunteer Fire Company, and just like that, I would continue to fight.


Let’s say for a moment that it doesn’t work. Then what? Concern for your name?

I’ve tried my best. No matter what, perhaps history will be kind in saying that I fought the good fight, or perhaps not. If we lose, I’ll mostly be concerned about what detrimental actions could happen to our country because of this. It’ll show that our Constitution doesn’t mean what our forefathers have fought for and what so many have died for. It would be a real setback for our country, and I hope we can avoid it.




For a complete time-line of all materials related to Berg v. Obama and the eligibility issue covered here at America's Right, including the original article, click HERE.