My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Monday, November 10, 2008

The strange behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg

Why would a Philadelphia lawyer file frivolous claims in federal courts about Barack Obama? Is it possible the lawyer is trying to divert attention from serious questions that exist about Obama's birth certificate and troubled and confusing family history?

Andy Martin speculates on the bizarre litigation behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(NEW YORK)(November 11, 2008) Some time in mid-August I began to get phone calls from a lawyer's office in Philadelphia. The lawyer was Philip J. Berg.

I eventually spoke with Mr. Berg. He explained that he was preparing to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama and a number of other parties. Berg asked if I would review the case before it was filed, and I agreed.

I carefully read Berg's initial complaint. (Some of the confirming e-mails are in the hands of Patriot Brigade Talk Radio Network.) I advised Berg's office that his lawsuit would not fly in federal court. His joinder of the Federal Election Commission was utter nonsense. Naming the Democratic Party was questionable. Seeking to enjoin the Party's convention was silliness. For an ordinary voter to sue Obama was a lost cause; I explained that already this year two judges had ruled individuals lacked legal standing to file such a claim. Berg sent me a revised version of his lawsuit that was equally deficient.

Berg has tried to pretend that his lack of "standing" is a technicality. On the contrary, in federal courts standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue. State courts have broad "general" jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. I explained to Berg how he could file a meritorious lawsuit in state court but he was frantic. "I want to file before the Democratic Convention so I can apply for an injunction," he said. At that point I decided Berg was a loon and had no further contact.

Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.

I did not become concerned until a New York radio talk show host who is a friend called me and said "Andy, what about the order for Obama to produce his birth certificate?" I explained to my friend that there was no such order. Berg and his supporters were spreading disinformation or allowing it to be disseminated.

I began receiving more calls and e-mails about Berg's lawsuit. Berg was escalating the idiocy of his behavior to attract frustrated voters. "Obama admitted he was born in Kenya," screamed one Berg release. Obama had admitted nothing of the sort. The more irresponsible Berg became, the more e-mail he generated from desperate voters.

Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.

Last month my staff and I discussed whether we should do a column about Berg's harmful behavior. We decided to ignore him and hope he would go away. Mr. Berg is not going away. He keeps manufacturing false claims to stay in the news and to keep soliciting money.

After Berg lost in the district court, he filed an appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals. But there was no "juice" in a mere appeal. Berg was soon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the national election—on the basis of his crackpot lawsuit. Once again Berg was denied relief. And once again Berg was ready with a new round of disinformation.

I started to get e-mails telling me the Supreme Court had ordered Obama to produce a birth certificate. No such order existed. The Rules of the Supreme Court allow thirty days to respond; Berg converted that into an "order" from the Court compelling his opponents to respond. Sheer disinformation. There was no "order."

The false claims about the Supreme Court are what convinced me to reverse my earlier view and write a column questioning Berg's behavior.

Enough, Mr. Berg.

What's next from him? What ridiculous claim will he concoct to continue attracting attention?

During this entire period of idiotic behavior Berg was going on talk radio and soliciting funds for his doomed mission.

What should all of this teach us? I have several thoughts for the reader to consider.

First, no one is more opposed to Barack Obama and his hard left warriors than I am. Obama's minions were not attacking Berg during the campaign; they were attacking me. I was the first one to focus attention on Obama's evasiveness and deception, four years ago. But while I have attacked Obama, I have also worked hard to anchor all of my claims in evidence, interviews and traditional forms of legal research. That's what really scares Obama.

When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.

Second, Berg likes to identify himself as a "supporter" of Hillary Clinton. That's garbage. He's smearing Clinton. Clinton must cringe every time Berg does some new stunt and misuses her name. Berg has no connection with Clinton. More misuse.

Third, is Berg's motive to collect money from frustrated voters? I don't know. He does ask for cash, so that may be the explanation. To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.

Fourth, could Berg be professionally incompetent? Berg has been criticized by judges:

Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior. When an Obama opponent acts crazy, Obama's people say "See."

There are very legitimate questions about Obama's birth certificate and family history. By filing frivolous cases (a case filed in the wrong court seeking the wrong relief against the wrong defendants is frivolous) and misusing legitimate issues, Berg obscures the seriousness of the underlying questions about Obama's past. And, inevitably, journalists link Berg and others (such as myself) together, despite the fact that we have absolutely no connection. I, for one, do not enjoy being joined to Berg in any form, even a news story.

Likewise, Berg's use of Clinton's name benefits Obama by discrediting Clinton as a possible behind-the-scenes Berg supporter, when nothing could be further from the truth. Dirty tricks? Obama and Axelrod are masters of smears by association and deception. Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.

Certainly no competent attorney who regularly practices in federal court would engage in Berg's hijinks. At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.

So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money? (4) is he an incompetent attorney? I can't say for sure which of those apply. I leave it to the good reader's common sense to reflect on Berg's behavior and to decide for him or herself just what Berg's motivation is.

Helping the anti-Obama movement is not Berg's mission. Quite the opposite. Berg has helped Obama by discrediting Obama's opponents. So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: or Immediate shipment from or signed copies from the publisher are available.
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at; Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger QueMan said...

I think you hit the nail on the head Mr. Martin. It is very strange that everyone like yourself or Corsi have been attacked but not Berg....

Keep up the great work and we all pray for you!

1:39 AM  
Blogger concernedintexas said...

It makes sense!! We're praying for you!!

4:15 AM  
Blogger antiracist said...

Martin, Mr. Internet Powerhouse my rear!!!!YOU ALSO ARE SEEKING BOOK SALES!!!!YOU ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE ON EARTH> WHERE ARE YOUR LOYAL INTERNET FOLLOWERS?????PERHAPS YOU CAN GET A JOB IN PALINS' GOVENOR OFFICE CLEANING TOILETS> ONE DAY YOUR HATE SPEAK WILL CATCH UP TO YOU>when it does ,MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR TWISTED SOUL.....I can only pray you are in fact mentally ill ,otherwise you will end up in hell if your free will has brought you to this evil place.

6:28 AM  
Blogger neen said...

Wow, Andrew! Sounds like you touched a nerve, eh???

Good work!!!

9:03 AM  
Blogger EMPIRICUM said...

Andy... you, Berg and Corsi are supposed to have a common goal here: to expose Obama. But you seem to be pursuing your petty jealousies. First you alled Corsi a "copycat." Now you call Berg names! Who are you going to attack next? Dr. EDWIN VIEIRA, Jr.? Be careful with him, Andy. He will eat you up alive! Let's all present a united front against Obama and put an end to these petty jealousies and playing the game of "Me, Hero!"

9:18 AM  
Blogger d said...

Mr Martin,

I wanted to know your opinion on this case that is also on the docket with the Supreme Court:


9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Berg demanded the arrest of Bush/Cheney over 911.

Berg demanded the disbarment of 3 Supreme Court Justices for ruling in favor of Bush in the 2000 elections.

You do the math.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Incredulous said...


4:40 PM  
Blogger janine said...

I went to this website and went to the feedback area, and I left a complaint about this court decision and how shady I thought the state officials and employees are in Hawaii, and they are helping with a cover-up that the rest of America will not soon forget. I myself will now start boycotting any products from Hawaii. I was going to take my vacation in Hawaii in 2 years, and I have now rescheduled my trip to Tahiti instead. I will never look at Hawaii the same from now on.

4:07 PM  
Blogger Dondi said...

Mr. Martin, perhaps a [F]ull page [Ad] might be in order:(I Humbly Suggest [S]imilar wording to this):

The Constitution of the United States of America:

" [W]e the [P]eople of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Is it that The Judge:Bert Ayabe can not [U]nderstand it? [I]f so then it is a [F]air [A]ssumption that he is [F]unctionally [I]lliterate.

The United States Constitution holds precedent over [A]ll [S]tate[C]onstitutions[.]
([A]s [I]s so stated in the United States Constitution!)

What part is it of:
[W]e the [P]eople is it that he does not understand?
This is a blatant disregard, and denial to the [C]onstitutional [R]ight to make an [I]nformed [D]ecison in choosing a [P]residential [C]andidtate.

The Constitution is by [C]onstitutional [R]ule of [S]tatutory [C]onstruction to be [W]ritten at the [C]ommon ]R]eading [L]evel of the [C]ommon [P]erson. [T]hat [R]eading [L]evel has
[L]ong been determined to be that of a [[T]]hired [[G]]rade [[R]]eading [[L]]evel [[.]]

Ask the [A]verage [E]ight [Y]ear [O]ld what [T]hey [U]nderstand this(We The People) to [M]ean,
I am confidnet they would understand the phrase, "[W]e [T]he [P]eople to carry the meaning that "All Americans [C]itizens" whom by [L]aw are [E]ntitled to vote [A]re "[C]onstitutionaly [E]ntitled" to make the request for this type of [D]isclosure and [L]egally assured [A]ccess
"For [A]ll Documents Concerning [A]ny [P]residential [C]andidate" [P]erhaps [E]xcluding the [M]ost [P]rivate of [M]atters

It is [A] mandatory part of the "[S]tumping [P]rocess that has been ignored for several years. It is specifically mentioned in [H]istory Books that cover the [L]incoln-[D]ouglass

It is essetial that this issue be addressed in a [P]ublic [F]orum(ie,.. News Papers and the rest of the media), as, there is absolutly [N]o standing [C]onstitutionaly for the [J]udges Decision, and it's [F]orm border upon the [C]rime of [T]reason on the part of the [C]ourt.

If You have doubt about any of these [F]acts, and whom is [L]egally entitled to [V]iew, and or [O]btain [S]aid documents, I implore you to check the [C]onstitutional [L]anguage against [B]lack [L]egal [D]ictionary, [A]nd [M]y acertations with any who are familiar with the
[C]onstitutional [R]ules of [S]tatutory [C]onstruction.

I then [C]hallenge You to Act upon This information appropriately, by giving light to this Fact.... [W]e [T]he [P]eople of [T]he [U]nited [S]tates is [A]ll encompassing, and it clear in it's [L]aunguage, as it [I]s [W]ritten at a [T]hird [G]rade [R]eading [L]evel!

"We the People" want aswers!!!

Sincerly Reverend Dondi Jon Cook
Fairbanks Alaska.

6:34 AM  
Blogger Dondi said...

This in and of itself would undermine the Judges credibility, and put his veracity in question!

6:38 AM  
Blogger Dondi said...

Please,please,please, make this a [P]ublic [I]ssue that will beg for these questions!

6:44 AM  
Blogger Dondi said...

Incidentally, I studied Constitutional History, and recieved an A-under the guidence of one [P]rofessor Bill Katz, a
[R]ecognised [E]xpert on [C]onstitutional interpretation, who among other things was employed as a consultant by Walt Disney Studios as an expert in Historical
[A]ccurateness of form and substance for thier
[R]evolutionary war series!

7:19 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

To view an FAQ on Barack Obama's birth certificate go to

4:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home