8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
1/47
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
__________________________
PHILIP J. BERG on his own behalf and as RELATOR on behalf of the
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Defendant Appellee.
And
THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
THE U.S. DEPPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Respondents - Appellees_________________________
APPELLANTS BRIEF
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: [email protected]
Attorney in Pro Se and as Relator on
behalf of the Government of theUnited States
Appendix Filed Separately
Court of Appeals Case No. 09-5362
Oral Argument is Requested
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 1
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
2/47
i
1.) PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE inpro seOn his own behalf and as RELATOR on behalf
Of the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
[Hereinafter at times Appellant]
Plaintiff Appellant
2.) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA[Hereinafter at times Obama]
Defendant Appellee
3.) UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Hereinafter at times The Government]
Respondents Appellees
The Rulings under review are all Orders of Judge Roberts, in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 08-cv-01933
RWR. Federal Supplement Citation for this Case isBerg v. Obama, 656 F.
Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2009). Said Rulings under review are as follows:
June 09, 2009 Order Dismissing the Case, Docket No. 16
Attached to the Appendix as Exhibit 1;
September 21, 2009 Memorandum of Opinion Denying Relators
Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. 21
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND
RELATED CASES
A. Parties
B. Rulings Under Review
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 2
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
3/47
ii
Attached to the Appendix as Exhibit 2;and
September 21, 2009 Final Order Denying Relators Motion for
Reconsideration, Docket No. 22Attached to the Appendix as Exhibit 3
To Counsels knowledge there are no other related cases or
proceedings pending in this Court or any other Court pertaining to the
Appellant and his Qui Tam (False Claims) Action.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 16, 2010 ___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: [email protected]
Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on
behalf of the Government of theUnited States
s/ Philip J. Berg
C. Related Cases
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 3
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
4/47
iii
Petitioner-Appellant, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, is a natural person. As
such, a corporate disclosure statement is not required. Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, 26.1(a).
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS RULE 26.1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 4
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
5/47
iv
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a), Appellant
respectfully requests oral argument. Appellant believes that oral argument
will assist the Court in deciding this Appeal, which involves a number of
important legal issues. Oral argument will enable the parties to address
these issues adequately and respond to the Courts questions and concerns.
REASONS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HEARD
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 5
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
6/47
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND
RELATED CASES.......i-ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.iii
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS....v-vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..vii-xii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.1-3
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES..3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...3-8
STANDARD OF REVIEW.8-9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.9-11
ARGUMENT...11-29
A. Appellee was Not Constitutionally eligible to
Serve As a United States Senator of Illinois as
he was Not A United States Citizen11-18
B. Appellant was entitled to the Discovery used
in the Governments Decision to DismissAppellants Qui Tam (FCA) Action....18-19
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 6
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
7/47
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
Page(s)
C. The Government had and has a Conflict-of-Interest
in Litigating the Qui Tam (FCA) Action againstour Now Sitting President, Barack Hussein Obama
and therefore, A Special Prosecutor Should have been Appointed20-27
D. The District Court erred in denying the Appellants
Motion for Reconsideration.27-29
CONCLUSION.29
IDENTICAL PDF AND HARD COPY CERTIFICATE.30
VIRUS SCAN CERTIFICATE.30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE....32-33
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 7
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
8/47
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415,432-433, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1996)28
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
113 S. Ct. 1770, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993).9
White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec.,455 U.S. 445, 102 S. Ct. 1162, 71 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1982)..28
District of Columbia Circuit Cases
Firestone v. Firestone, 316 U.S. App. D.C. 152,
76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996)..28
Mitchell v. United States, 977 A.2d 959 (D.C. 2009).....9
Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003)..19
Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2006)..9
Wilson v. United States, 785 A.2d 321 (D.C. 2001)...9
All Other Circuit Courts
Burnham v. Amoco Container Co., 738 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1984)29
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 8
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
9/47
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued
Page(s)
Cases
All Other Circuit Courts, Continued
Dawson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 978 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1992)..28
Still v. Towsend, 311 F.2d 23 (6th Cir. 1962)...28
Womble v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 431 F.2d 985 (6th Cir. 1970)...28
United States District Courts
United States ex rel. Mikes v. Strauss,
846 F.Supp. 21 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)...19
All other Courts
Soetoro v. Soetoro, First Circuit Family Court,State of Hawaii, F.C.D. No 117619 (1980).14
FEDERAL STATUTES
Page(s)
18 U.S.C. 201.23
18 U.S.C. 203.23
18 U.S.C. 205...21, 23
18 U.S.C. 208.....21, 23, 24*
*
*
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 9
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
10/47
ix
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued
Page(s)
FEDERAL STATUTES, Continued
18 U.S.C. 209.23
28 U.S.C. 1291..1
31 U.S.C. 3729 through 3733.1
Nationality Act of 1940.14
HAWAIIN STATUTES
Page(s)
Chapter 57 - 57-8 (1955)..4
338-17.8 (1986)4
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR)
Page(s)
5 CFR 2635 ...23
5 CFR 2635.101.....21
5 CFR 2635.401.24
*
*
*
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 10
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
11/47
x
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued
Page(s)
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR), Continued
5 CFR 2635.402.....24
5 CFR 2635.501(a).23
5 CFR 2635.502.....23
5 CFR 2640....23
5 U.S.C. 2640.103..24
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Page(s)
Article I, Section 36, 9, 11
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Page(s)
Rule 59..27
Rule 59(e)....27. 28
Rule 60(a)..29
*
*
*
*
*
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 11
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
12/47
xi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued
Page(s)
INDONESIAN LAWS
Asian Law DigestsINDONESIA LAW DIGEST 4.02 .11, 12, 13, 15
Asian Law Digests
INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 9.0212
Asian Law Digests
INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 13.04, Infants...12, 13
Constitution of Republic of Indonesia
Law No. 62 of 1958.13, 14
Constitution of Republic of Indonesia
(Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945),
Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958...14
Constitution of Republic of Indonesia of 1945,
Chapter XIII. Education Article 31...14
Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum
Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie)13
MISCELLANIOUS
Page(s)
John Chierichella & Louis Victorino,
A Qui Tam Conundrum; When Relators Suit Lacks Merit,What is Governments Duty to the Contractor?
Legal Times (February 28, 2000), at 30-31...17
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 12
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
13/47
xii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued
Page(s)
MISCELLANIOUS, Continued
S. Rep. No. 99-345 at 23-24 (1986) U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5288-89...10
The Erie Doctrine and Applicable Law.27
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 13
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
14/47
1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This is a Qui Tam (False Claims) Action wherein the U.S. District
Court had original jurisdiction pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3729 through 3733.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, entered on June 9, 2009 and September 21,
2009. Notice of Appeal was timely filed on October 21, 2009. Accordingly,
this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The government filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellants Qui Tam
(False Claims) action against Barack Hussein Obama for his term as United
States Senator for the State of Illinois, who now happens to be the President
of the United States. The Court held a Hearing under Seal. The government
claimed they had an unfettered discretion to dismiss the case and the Court
did not have any say in the matter. The Court complied with the
Government and Dismissed the Relators Action against Barack Hussein
Obama on June 9, 2009. Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Dismissal on the basis of the law discovered regarding the Governments
Conflict-of-Interest as Barack Hussein Obama was the sitting President and
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 14
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
15/47
2
their boss. Appellant was not afforded a hearing or chance to be heard,
although he requested such, and Appellants Motion was Denied on
September 21, 2009. This timely appeal was filed on October 21, 2009.
1. Whether the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia erred and/or abused its discretion by granting the
Governments Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Relators Qui Tam
(False Claims) Action?
2. Whether the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in
failing to address the issues regarding the Governments Conflict-of-
Interest in representing President Barack Hussein Obama in the
Courts Order Dismissing the Relators Qui Tam (False Claims)
Action?
3. Whether the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by
Denying Appellants Request for Discovery of the Evidence and/or
Documents used by the Government in their determination to seek
Dismissal of the Relators Qui Tam (False Claims) Action? and
4. Whether the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by
Denying Appellants Motion for Reconsideration based on the new
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 15
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
16/47
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
17/47
4
Moreover, Appellant believes Appellees foreign birth was registered in the
State of Hawaii as permitted pursuant to the 1955 Laws on the books,
Chapter 57 Vital Statistics, Section 57-8 Compulsory Registration of
Births; 57-9 Local Registrar to Prepare Birth Certificate. These statutes
were since revised in 1982 as Section 338-17.8.
Appellant further discovered when Appellee was approximately six
[6] years old, his mother, after divorcing Barack Hussein Obamas father,
married Lolo Soetoro, M.A. an Indonesian citizen and relocated with his
mother to Jakarta, Indonesia. During the investigation into these matters,
Appellant learned Appellee attended public school in Jakarta, Indonesia,
where only citizens of Indonesia could attend. It was further discovered that
Appellee Obamas school record indicated that he attended school under the
name of Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian Citizen. The Indonesian public
schools verified with the Indonesian Government the name and citizenship
status of all enrolled children. The only way Appellee could have been
enrolled in the public school system in Jakarta, Indonesia is if his step-
father, Lolo Soetoro, M.A., adopted him and/or signed an Indonesian
Government Acknowledgement form legally acknowledging Appellee,
Barack Hussein Obama as his son. In Indonesia the child takes the surname
of the father. At this point, it did not matter where Appellee was born or the
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 17
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
18/47
5
citizenship status of his birth parents. Once adopted and/or his birth was
acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, M.A., Appellee became a natural
citizen of Indonesia and his legal name became Barry Soetoro.
No records have been located where Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack
Hussein Obama went through U.S. Immigration in 1971 when he was ten
[10] years old, upon his return to the United States, which would be required
to assume United States naturalized citizenship status and therefore, the
lack thereof, he would be an illegal alien. In addition, absolutely no
records have been located showing where Barry Soetoro legally changed his
name back to Barack Hussein Obama.
Even if Appellee could have regained any United States Citizenship
status upon his eighteenth [18th] birthday, he would have been required to
file a sworn Affidavit with the Indonesian Government relinquishing his
Indonesian Citizenship, and taking the Oath of Allegiance in the United
States, which would be recorded.
Indonesia in the late 1960s, early 1970s did not recognize dual
citizenship and required the relinquishment of any other citizenship status
upon becoming an Indonesian citizen. The United States would not interfere
with the citizenship status of any foreign citizen.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 18
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
19/47
6
As a result, as the records in possession of the Appellant suggest,
Appellee is still an Indonesian Citizen and his legal name is Barry Soetoro
and not Barack H. Obama.
In response to the citizenship questions of Appellee, Appellee released
on the Internet a copy of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB).
Even if this COLB is a legitimate document, which there is reason to believe
it is not. A Hawaiian COLB is issued to births that occurred in Hawaii and
births of children born abroad. Appellee has never addressed the issues
regarding his Indonesian citizenship and/or legal name.
In order to assume the position of a United States Senator, the party
must be a naturalized citizen for nine [9] years and be at least thirty [30]
years old and must use his/her legal name, Article I, Section 3 of the U.S.
Constitution. For the above reasons, again, which are better outlined below,
Appellee did not qualify to hold the Office of United States Senator for
Illinois; he was aware of his citizenship status and the fact his name was not
legally Barack Hussein Obama. Despite this, Appellee defrauded the United
States by filing claims he was qualified to hold this seat and filing false
statements with the Department of Treasury for his salary and expenses.
On or about March 30, 2009, the government Moved to Dismiss the
Appellants Qui Tam (False Claims) Action. The Government does have
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 19
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
20/47
7
broad discretion to dismiss a False Claims Act; however, they must meet the
rational relation standard that is the substantive due process analysis
requirement, which they failed to do.
The Government has a duty to investigate the allegations outlined in a
Qui Tam (False Claims Act) filed by a Relator. Moreover, when the
Government goes to have the Qui Tam case Dismissed, the Relator is
entitled to the Discovery the Government used in their determination to
dismiss the action. Appellant herein was refused the Discovery. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Governments
Dismissal.
Throughout the litigation of the within case, Appellant learned the
U.S. Attorneys General and his staff, which includes the U.S. Department
of Justice had a clear Conflict-Of-Interest in representing Appellee.
Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama is now the President of the United States
and is their boss.
This Qui Tam based on the False Claims Act (hereinafter at times
FCA) is a unique case with unique circumstances because of the nature of
the False Claims, that being because the allegations of fraud herewith are
against now, sitting President Barack Hussein Obama. The claims are based
upon the fact Appellee fraudulently held the Office of United States Senator
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 20
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
21/47
8
from Illinois and the fact that review of these proceedings to decide to
prosecute rests with the United States Attorney General Eric Holder. The
United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged
violator; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator; was senior
legal advisor to Appellee, Barack Hussein Obamas Presidential campaign;
and served as one of three [3] members on Appellees Vice-Presidential
Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still
exists with the within litigation.
The proper procedure would have been for the Lower Court to appoint
a Special Prosecutor, as Appellant requested, however, this did not occur.
Appellants Notice of Appeal is attached to the Appendix as
EXHIBIT 1. The District Courts Order of Dismissal is attached to the
Appendix as EXHIBIT 2 and the District Courts Order of denial of
Appellants Motion for Reconsideration is attached to the Appendix as
EXHIBIT 3.
For all the reasons explained herein, it is incumbent upon this Court to
uphold the requirements of the Qui Tam (FCA) statutes, Remand this Case
back to the Lower Court with instructions that the Discovery used by the
Government must be turned over to Appellant; A special prosecutor must be
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 21
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
22/47
9
appointed; and Appellant must be allowed to litigate the within case on
behalf of the Government.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Courts review is plenary, based on the issues presented in this
Appeal which include the District Courts abuse of discretion and the
District Courts error in formulating and applying legal precepts. In
addition, this Courts review is de novo based on the issues presented in this
Appeal which include Legal Conclusions and issues of statutory construction
of Article I, Section 3, Mitchell v. United States, 977 A.2d 959, 968 (D.C.
2009). Moreover, whether a Conflict-Of-Interest exists is a question of law
and the District Courts refusal to address the Conflict-of-Interest was a
plain error, Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1, 8 (D.C. 2006). To
demonstrate plain error, Appellant must show that: (1) there is error, (2) the
error is plain, meaning clear or obvious, and (3) the error affected substantial
rights. Id. (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770,
123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993)). The District Courts error caused a 'miscarriage
of justice,' and the trial court's error . . . 'seriously affect[ed] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" See Wilson v. United
States, 785 A.2d 321, 326 (D.C. 2001) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 736).
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 22
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
23/47
10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The False Claims Act is aimed at establishing a law enforcement
partnership between federal law enforcement offices and private citizens
who learned or have the knowledge of fraud against the Government.
When the amendments to the False Claims Act were introduced in
1985, Senator Charles Grassley explained the purpose behind the Act:
The government needs help lots of help to adequately protect the Treasury against growing and increasinglysophisticated fraudPart of the solution something I consideressential to any meaningful improvements in cutting downfraud is the establishment of a solid partnership between
public law enforcersThe Federal government has a big job onits hands as it attempts to ensure he integrity of the nearly $1trillion we spend each year on various programs and
procurement. That job is simply too big if government officialsare working alone
Congresss intent in amending the Qui Tam section in 1986 was to
encourage more private enforcement suits. S. Rep. No. 99-345 at 23-24
(1986) U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5288-89.
Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama, collected monies from the Federal
Government based on false claims that he was in fact a United States Citizen
eligible to serve as a United States Senator for Illinois. However, the facts
point to the fact that Appellees legal name is still Barry Soetoro and not
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 23
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
24/47
11
Barack Hussein Obama and that he is still an Indonesian Citizen, not an
American Citizen.
Moreover, the Government has a serious Conflict-Of-Interest as
Appellee is now President of the United States and directly supervises the
United States Attorney General and United States Department of Justice.
The District Court plainly erred in allowing the government to
Dismiss Appellants Qui Tam (FCA) case without addressing the Conflict-
Of-Interest with the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of
Justice and failing to conflict them out and appointing a Special Prosecutor.
ARGUMENT
A. APPELLEE WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE
TO SERVE AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR OF ILLINOIS
AS HE WAS NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN
In order to assume the position of a United States Senator, the party
must be a naturalized citizen for nine [9] years; be at least thirty [30] years
old; and must use his/her legal name, Article I, Section 3 of the U.S.
Constitution. Appellee did not qualify to hold his position as United States
Senator of Illinois and provided false claims to assume the position and
collect his salary.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 24
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
25/47
12
In or about 1967, when Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama was
approximately six [6] years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married
Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and moved Appellee to Indonesia.
Appellees Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, adopted or legally
acknowledged Appellee Barack H. Obama making him a natural citizen of
Indonesia and giving him the legal name of Barry Soetoro. See the Asian
Law Digests INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 4.02, Citizenship, section (viii)
and Asian Law Digests INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 13.04, Infants.
Appellee was enrolled, by his parent, Lolo Soetoro, in a public school,
Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Attached to the Appendix as
EXHIBIT 4, is the school record of Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama. It
clearly states his name is Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as
Indonesian. His father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, his date of birth and place
of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and his Religion is listed as
Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt
Meagher took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Appellee
was registered in public school, the public schools obtained and verified the
citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian
Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government
identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 25
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
26/47
13
identification called aKartu Keluarga. TheKartu Keluarga is a family card
which bears the legal names and citizenship of all family members. See the
Asian Law Digests INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 9.02.
The only way Appellee could have obtained the name of Barry
Soetoro and the citizenship of Indonesian is if his step-father, Lolo Soetoro
adopted him or legally acknowledged Barack Hussein Obama as his son.
Either way, he became a natural citizen of Indonesia.
Under the laws of Indonesia, whether a child is adopted or legally
acknowledged, it changes the citizenship status of the child to an Indonesian
State Citizen of Indonesia. See the Constitution of Republic of Indonesia,
Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil
Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk
Wetboek voor Indonesie); the Asian Law Digests INDONESIA LAW
DIGEST 4.02, Citizenship, section (viii) and the Asian Law Digests
INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 13.04, Infants.
Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama could not have attended the public
school system in Indonesia, which he did, unless he was an Indonesian
citizen. Whenever a child was enrolled in a public school in Indonesia, as
Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama, was, the school contacted the Indonesia
Government and verified the childs name and citizenship status. See
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 26
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
27/47
14
Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik
Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia
have a right to education); and the Constitution of Indonesia of 1945,
Chapter XIII. Education Article 31.
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride
(stateless) and bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize
neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.
In addition, the United States Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the
loss of citizenship when a child became naturalized in a foreign country
upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such child.
In or about 1971, Appellees mother sent him back to Hawaii.
Appellee was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii. At this time,
Appellee would have had to go through United States Immigration to
become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Even if Appellee could
have regained any United States citizenship status, he would have had to go
through the United States State Department, where there would be a record.
Appellees mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro
divorced in or about August 1980. In their divorce papers they claim to be
married and have two [2] children of the marriage, one [1] under the age of
eighteen [18] which would be Maya Soetoro and one over the age of
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 27
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
28/47
15
eighteen [18], still dependant on the parties for education, which would have
been Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama. See the Soetoro Divorce decree
attached to the Appendix as EXHIBIT 51.
Appellant has been unable to locate any record of Appellee legally
changing his name from Barry Soetoro back to Barack Hussein Obama.
Therefore, Appellees legal name is still today, Barry Soetoro. Moreover,
Appellant has been unable to locate any immigration records for Barry
Soetoro and/or Barack Hussein Obama. To this date, Appellee, Barack
Hussein Obama is still an Indonesian Citizen and an Illegal Alien.
If Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama could have regained any U.S.
citizenship, he may have had and lost upon his mothers re-marriage and
relocation to Indonesia and the adoption and/or legal acknowledgement of
Lolo Soetoro acknowledging him as his son, when he reached eighteen (18)
years of age, he would have had to file a sworn Affidavit with the
Indonesian Government relinquishing his Indonesian Citizenship and go
through the United States State Department, take the Oath of Allegiance,
which would have had to be done by age twenty-one [21]. See the Asian
Law Digests INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 4.02, Citizenship.
1 Soetoro v. Soetoro, First Circuit Family Court, State of Hawaii, F.C.D. No 117619 (1980)
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 28
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
29/47
16
In order to regain any U.S. citizenship status, if entitled, Appellee,
Barack Hussein Obama, would have had to make application to the United
States State Department to regain his citizenship status, if granted, he would
bear a Certificate of Citizenship. The same would have occurred if Appellee
would have gone through Immigration and became a naturalized U.S.
Citizen.
The Appellant is also informed, believes and thereon alleges that
Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama, attended Occidental College in California
and Columbia University wherein he claimed to be a foreign student.
Appellant has been unable to verify this with the Universities as the records
have since been sealed.
Appellant has also been unable to locate a legal name change wherein
Barry Soetoro legally changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama.
Therefore, Barry Soetoro is still his legal name and his legal citizenship
status is Indonesian. Hence, Appellee Barack Hussein Obama usurped the
Office of United States Senator for Illinois, knowing he was ineligible.
Moreover, Appellee filed false claims with the United States Government
claiming to be Constitutionally qualified for his Senate position and filed
false claims in order to obtain payment from the United States and the
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 29
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
30/47
17
Treasury Department for his salary and expenses to which he was not
entitled.
The Government was supplied with this information as well as Barry
Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obamas Indonesian School Record. Barry
Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama has admitted he attended school in
Indonesia and talked about his life in Indonesia on national Television.
What investigation has the Government done into these issues?
As stated above, Barack Hussein Obama is a lawyer who claims to be
a Constitutional lawyer [he states he taught Constitutional Law for ten
(10) years] and was well aware he was not qualified to hold the Office of the
United States Senator of Illinois. Furthermore, he signed governmental
paperwork to obtain his position and obtain the pay and related expenses for
said position claiming to be a naturalized U.S. citizen and Constitutionally
qualified for the position. He obtained money from the United States
Government and the Treasury Department based on his false claims.
The Government rarely moves to dismiss a Qui Tam Complaint; it can
simply decline to intervene in the action, thereby limiting expenditure of
governmental prosecutorial resources while preserving the outside chance
the action may be successfully pursued by the Relator. Two [2]
commentators argue that the inactivity of the Government in a declined Qui
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 30
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
31/47
18
Tam case may constitute a violation of the Governments contractual duty of
good faith and fair dealing. See John Chierichella & Louis Victorino, A Qui
Tam Conundrum; When Relators Suit Lacks Merit, What is Governments
Duty to the Contractor? Legal Times (February 28, 2000), at 30-31.
Despite the evidence presented, The Government moved to Dismiss
the Qui Tam action claiming the Appellants claims lacked merit. The
Appellant clearly established a genuine question into the legality of Barack
Hussein Obama serving as United States Senator of Illinois. The Appellant
is unsure as to Appellees legal name and citizenship status. With this said,
pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the
Government has a duty to ensure our laws are upheld, which also include
our Constitutional laws. The dismissal of Appellants Qui Tam (FCA)
Action by the Government is in clear violation of their duties pursuant to
Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and should NOT be allowed.
B. APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DISCOVERY USED
IN THE GOVERNMENTS DECISION TO DISMISS
APPELLANTS QUI TAM(FCA) ACTION
Appellant furnished the Government and the Lower Court with the
evidence pointing to the fact Appellee, Barack Hussein Obamas legal name
is Barry Soetoro and the fact he is an Indonesian citizen.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 31
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
32/47
19
In addition, Appellant raised the issue pertaining to Appellees
college records wherein Appellant is informed, believes and thereon alleges
Appellee attended Occidental College in California and Columbia
University as a foreign student.
The government has not refuted any of the above. This leads to the
question of what did the government investigate?
Has the Government located any citizenship records for Barry Soetoro
a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama?
Has the Government located any legal documents legally changing
Barry Soetoros name to Barack Hussein Obama?
Appellant has clearly shown a substantial threshold entitling him to
discovery relating to the Governments prosecutorial decision to seek
dismissal of the Relators False Claim Action [Qui Tam]. See Swift v. United
States, 318 F.3d 250, 254 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Information filed or gathered by the Government relating to its
decision whether to intervene has been held non-exempt from disclosure. In
United States ex rel. Mikes v. Strauss, 846 F.Supp. 21 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) the
Court denied the Governments Motion to retain the documents filed in
relation to the Governments investigation of a Qui Tam Complaint under
seal.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 32
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
33/47
20
Although the Appellant raised these issues, the Lower Court failed to
address the issues. Thus, the District Court erred and/or abused its
discretion by failing to address the issue of Discovery.
C. THE GOVERNMENT HAD AND HAS A CONFLICT-OF-
INTEREST IN LITIGATING THE QUI TAM (FCA) ACTION
AGAINST OUR NOW SITTING PRESIDENT, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, and THEREFORE, A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED
This Qui Tam (FCA) Action is very unique. Appellee, Barack
Hussein Obama is now our acting President of the United States. Appellee
Obama appointed Eric Holder for the position of the United States Attorney
General and Mr. Holder reports directly to Appellee Obama. This creates a
huge Conflict-Of-Interest with anyone from U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holders Office or the U.S. Department of Justice, who Eric Holder over-
sees, having any association with the Qui Tam matter against, now,
President Obama, the Appellee herein.
Review of these proceedings to decide to prosecute rests with the
United States Attorney General Eric Holder who reports directly to the
alleged violator; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator; was
senior legal advisor to Appellee Barack H. Obamas Presidential campaign;
and served as one of three [3] members on Appellee Obamas Vice-
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 33
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
34/47
21
Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest
exists.
There are four [4] Federal Statutory prohibitions and related
regulations addressing Conflicts-Of-Interest on the part of present officers or
employees of the Federal (and in some instances of the District of Columbia)
government. None of the statutory prohibitions are limited in application
solely to lawyers. The conflicts dealt with by the several provisions are, in
each instance, conflicts between public responsibilities and private interests.
All of the statutory provisions are found in Chapter 11 (Bribery, Graft and
Conflicts of Interest) of Title 18 of the United States Code, the Federal
Criminal Code.
There are statutory restrictions on Conflicts-of-Interest during
Government Service. There are four [4] statutory provisions regarding
conflicts between governmental responsibilities and private interests of
government employees, all of which apply to employees of the District of
Columbia as well as the federal government, two [2] of which apply in this
case and are as follows:
A prohibition on certain representational activities relating to
claims against and other matters affecting the government, 18USC 205.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 34
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
35/47
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
36/47
23
they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.
Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these
standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a
reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts(c) Related
statutes. In addition to the standards of ethical conduct set forth in this part,
there are conflict of interest statutes that prohibit certain conduct. Criminal
conflict of interest statutes of general applicability to all employees, 18
U.S.C. 201, 203, 205, 208, and 209, are summarized in the appropriate
subparts of this part and must be taken into consideration in determining
whether conduct is proper. Citations to other generally applicable statutes
relating to employee conduct are set forth in subpart I and employees are
further cautioned that there may be additional statutory and regulatory
restrictions applicable to them generally or as employees of their specific
agencies. Because an employee is considered to be on notice of the
requirements of any statute, an employee should not rely upon any
description or synopsis of a statutory restriction, but should refer to the
statute itself and obtain the advice of an agency ethics official as needed.
As to the restrictions on Conflicts-Of-Interest during government
service, only section 208 is illuminated by formal regulations, which are
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 36
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
37/47
24
found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 5 CFR 2635 and in 5
CFR Part 2640. 5 CFR 2635.501(a) states in pertinent part:
An employee who is concerned that other circumstances wouldraise a question regarding his impartiality should use the process
described in 2635.502 to determine whether he should or should notparticipate in a particular matter. See also 18 U.S.C. 208(a).
5 CFR 2635.502 states in pertinent parts, (a) where the employee
determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with
knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter, the
employee should not participate in the matter (b) Definitions. For
purposes of this section: participate in a particular matter(iv) Any person
for whom the employee has, within the last year, served as officer, director,
trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor or employee.
5 U.S.C. 2640.103 Prohibition states:
(a) Statutory prohibition. Unless permitted by 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1)(4), an employee is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 208(a) from
participating personally and substantially in an official capacity in
any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he or any other
person specified in the statute has a financial interest, if the particularmatter will have a direct and predictable effect on that interest. The
restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 208 are described more fully in 5 CFR2635.401 and 2635.402.
(1) Particular matter. The term particular matter includes only
matters that involve deliberation, decision, or action that is focusedupon the interests of specific persons, or a discrete and identifiable
class of persons. The term may include matters which do not involveformal parties and may extend to legislation or policy making that is
narrowly focused on the interests of a discrete and identifiable class
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 37
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
38/47
25
of persons. It does not, however, cover consideration or adoption ofbroad policy options directed to the interests of a large and diverse
group of persons. The particular matters covered by this part include
a judicial or other proceeding, application or request for a ruling or
other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusationor arrest.
(2) Personal and substantial participation. To participate
personally means to participate directly. It includes the direct
and active supervision of the participation of a subordinate in
the matter. To participate substantially means that the employee'sinvolvement is of significance to the matter. Participation may be
substantial even though it is not determinative of the outcome of
a particular matter. However, it requires more than official
responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvementon an administrative or peripheral issue. A finding of substantiality
should be based not only on the effort devoted to the matter, but alsoon the importance of the effort. While a series of peripheral
involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or
participating in a critical step may be substantial. Personal and
substantial participation may occur when, for example, an
employee participates through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, investigation or the rendering of advice in a
particular matter. [emphasis added]
(3)Direct and predictable effect. (i) A particular matter will have adirect effect on a financial interest if there is a close causal link
between any decision or action to be taken in the matter and any
expected effect of the matter on the financial interest. An effect may
be direct even though it does not occur immediately. A particularmatter will not have a direct effect on a financial interest, however, if
the chain of causation is attenuated or is contingent upon theoccurrence of events that are speculative or that are independent of,
and unrelated to, the matter. A particular matter that has an effect ona financial interest only as a consequence of its effects on the general
economy does not have a direct effect within the meaning of thispart.
(ii) A particular matter will have a predictable effect if there is a
real, as opposed to a speculative, possibility that the matter will
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 38
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
39/47
26
affect the financial interest. It is not necessary, however, that themagnitude of the gain or loss be known, and the dollar amount of the
gain or loss is immaterial.
Eric Holder joined President Obamas Presidential Campaign as
Senior Legal Advisor and also served as one of three [3] members on
Obamas Vice-Presidential Selection Committee. December 2008, then
President-Elect Obama asked Eric Holder to serve in his Cabinet as the
United States Attorney General. See the Appendix EXHIBIT 6.
Mr. Holder was appointed by President Obama and now serves as the
United States Attorney General whom is the head of the United States
Department of Justice and United States Attorney Generals Office. Eric
Holder is paid by the United States Government and reports directly to,
Appellee President Obama. Eric Holder has a direct financial interest in
that he draws a salary based on his position as United States Attorney
General.
Furthermore, the Conflict-Of-Interest goes beyond financial. The
United States Attorney General is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the
Federal Government and represents the United States in legal matters and
gives advice and opinions to the President of the United States, whom is the
Appellee herein. See the Appendix EXHIBIT 7.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 39
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
40/47
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
41/47
28
D. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
APELLANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Rule 59 is a procedural device and is therefore applicable in all federal
cases, except in certain limited circumstances. See generally Ch. 124, The
Erie Doctrine and Applicable Law).
A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion only when it finds an
"intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Firestone v.
Firestone, 316 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
(per curiam) (internal quotations and citations omitted ). Dawson v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., 978 F.2d 205, 206 (5th Cir. 1992) (federal rules govern
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 determination) Still v. Towsend, 311 F.2d 23, 24 (6th Cir.
1962) (motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is
determined by federal not state law); Womble v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 431
F.2d 985, 989 (6th Cir. 1970) (citing Moore's, court held that federal rules
apply to question of jury misconduct for purpose of granting or denying new
trial).
The Supreme Court has stated that Rule 59(e) is generally invoked
"only to support reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 41
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
42/47
29
decision on the merits." White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec.,
455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S. Ct. 1162, 71 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1982).
Re-examination clause does not limit trial judge's authority. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(a); Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 432-433,
116 S. Ct. 2211, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1996) (citing Moore's, discussing
applicable analysis in re-examination clause cases presenting countervailing
federal interests).
Although Motions for Reconsideration are to be filed within ten [10]
days upon Entry of Judgment, there is an exception to the rule, its the Rule
60(a) exception. See Burnham v. Amoco Container Co., 738 F.2d 1230,
1231-1232 (11th Cir. 1984).
Appellant timely filed his motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 59(e) and presented new evidence and new laws therein.
Therefore, all criteria for reconsideration of the District Courts
Dismissal of the Qui Tam (FCA) Action had been met. The District Court
erred and/or abused its discretion by denying Appellants Motion for
Reconsideration.
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 42
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
43/47
30
E. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Lower Court must be over-turned, a
Special Prosecutor appointed and the case must be allowed to go forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 16, 2010 ___________________________Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: [email protected]
Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on
behalf of the Government of theUnited States
s/ Philip J. Berg
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 43
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
44/47
31
IDENTICAL PDF and HARD COPY CERTIFICATE
The Undersigned hereby certifies that the PDF file and hard copies of
this Brief are identical.
Dated: February 16, 2010 ______________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on
behalf of the Government of the
United States
VIRUS SCAN CERTIFICATE
This e-mail and the attached Brief have been automatically scanned
during preparation and upon sending by the following virus detection
programs: Norton Anti-Virus Software Program, and no viruses were
detected.
Dated: February 16, 2010 ______________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on
behalf of the Government of theUnited States
s/ Philip J. Berg
s/ Philip J. Berg
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 44
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
45/47
32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This Brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this Brief contains 6,090 words excluding the parts of
the Brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This Brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because
this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word Office Professional (2000) in font 14, Times New Roman.
Dated: February 16, 2010 ______________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on
behalf of the Government of theUnited States
s/ Philip J. Berg
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 45
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
46/47
33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire hereby certify that Appellants Brief and
Appendix Volume I were served upon the Government via electronic filing
on the ECF system, this 16th day of February 2010, upon the following:
Eric Fleisig-Greene, Esquire
U.S. Department of Justice
DOJ Civil Division Appellate StaffRoom 7214
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530-0001
Email: [email protected]
R. Craig Lawrence
United States Attorneys OfficeCivil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
555 Fourth Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530
Email: [email protected]
Mark B. Stern
U.S. Department of JusticeDOJ Civil Division, Appellate Staff
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530-0001
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Appellees Barack Hussein Obama and the Government
Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 46
8/14/2019 BERG v OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF [1230292] - Transport Room
47/47
Top Related