Cody Robert Judy
Pro Se
840 Pinnacle Ct. Suite 6-B
Mesquite, NV 89024

                                                             UNITED STATES COURT
                                                              DISTRICT OF NEVADA

                                                                                    ) EMERGENCY EXHIBIT OF EVIDENCE NOTICE TO SUBMIT FOR A DECISION
                                 Plaintiff , ) ON ALL 3 PENDING
                                                                                    ) MOTIONS FOR
                                                                                                     CIVIL ORDER JUDGEMENT
  1. )
                 1-4 et al., Civil No. 2:08-cv-01162-KJD-RJJ
                                                 Defendant(s). )
1- Plaintiff infuses all Federal Law and Case Law applicable and attributed in the attached Exhibit A of the Berg v. Obama case now considered in the U.S. Supreme Court including
a. Fed.Rule of Civil Proc. Rule 37- U.S. Constitution Article 2,Sect.1
b. All National Security Considerations applicable in Obama v. Berg, with Sen. John McCain.
c. All Constitutional Considerations of National Civil Unrest and disobedience of law represented by the lack of spine for the U.S. Constitution , application of law, and Judicial Responsibility.
d. All application of urgency to make a decision before the election, to avoid a U.S. Constitutional Crisis, which could lead to an International crisis of global proportion.

2- Upwards of 100 Million of the American People have a direct awareness of the U.S. Constitutional law now of the “Natural Born” qualification for U.S. President that have logged on to and have real knowledge of the Constitutional Demand for a “Natural Born” President. This poses a national demand for Justice by the Judicial Branch considering the issue presented by this case.
3- As Plaintiff is aware, this is the only pending case upon which “direct harm” has merit and “standing” is appropriate, as Plaintiff is also a declared and legal candidate for the office of the U.S. Presidency.
4- With these considerations, Plaintiff request an immediate Civil Judgment before the election to avoid the Constitutional Crisis, The plausible and potential National Civil Unrest, and the plausible and potential global crisis of an American U.S. President being elected who is not a “Natural Born Citizen” and of at least 35 years of age as the U.S. Constitution specifies plainly, simply, and very clearly.


The Memorandum and Order of the United
States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Berg v. Obama, et al, 08-cv-4083
(2008), is attached to the Appendix as Exhibit “A”.
The United States District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania entered its Order on October
24, 2008. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2101(e), Mr. Berg having
asserted below and asserting in this petition the
deprivation of rights secured by the United States
Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme
Court pursuant to is invoked under Supreme Court
Rules 10 and 11 (hereinafter, “Rule 10” and Rule
11”). Rule 10 provides that “[a] review on writ of
certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial
discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be
granted only when there are special and important
reasons therefore.” Jurisdiction of this Court is
invoked under rule 10(c) which provides that review
should be granted when the court below “has decided
an important question of federal law which has not
been, but should be settled by this Court…”
Supreme Court Rule 10(c). Although the case is
pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
and it has not entered any order or judgment, the
Supreme Court may still grant certiorari under Rule
11 because this case “is of such imperative public
importance as to justify deviation from normal
appellate practice and to require immediate
determination of this Court.” Supreme Court Rule
Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme
Court is appropriate in this case because the matter
involves a matter that is novel and is of extreme
importance to the general public interest and the
administration of justice. Jurisdiction may be
invoked under the Supreme Court Rule 10, entitled
Considerations Governing Review on Writ of
Certiorari (hereinafter, “Rule 10”). This standard
includes intervention to prevent a gross miscarriage
of justice.
The Judicial Administration Standards have
also recommended criteria for discretionary review.
These are “that the matter involves a question that is
novel or difficult, is the subject of conflicting
authorities applicable within the jurisdiction, or is of
importance in the general public interest or in the
administration of justice.” STANDARDS RELATING
TO APPELLATE COURTS 3.10C (1977). Under the
latter standard this case, which involves a matter
that is novel and is of extreme importance to the
general public interest, the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is invoked.
This Court has the inherent power to act upon
a petition for certiorari and render a decision with
extraordinary speed when the need for prompt action
is urgent as the case involves extraordinary public
significance. See Weeks v. Angelone, 527 U.S. 1060
(1999); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 1046 (2000). This case
involves extraordinary public significance and
requires action urgently as the Presidential election
is less than five (5) days away.
  1. This case involves Article II, Section I,
Clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which
provides that, “No person except a “natural born”
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time
of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible
to the Office of President, neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.”
  1. This case involves the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which
provides, in relevant part, that “No state may
deprive any person of life, liberty or property without
due process of law, nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
  1. Article III, Section 2 of the United
States Constitution provides that the federal judicial
power is limited to “Cases . . . [and] Controversies.”
This case raises important, recurring
questions relating to the presumptive scope of the
United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2
Standing issues which pertain to questioning the
qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential
Candidate, pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 5
of the United States Constitution, to serve as
President of the United States.
Moreover, the case raises the issues of (1) who
has the right to question the qualifications of a
Presidential candidate, (2) who is delegated the
responsibility of ensuring the Presidential candidates
are in fact qualified, and (3) who has standing in our
Court systems to raise these issues with the
appropriate Courts.
This case involves national security,
extraordinary public significance and requires action
urgently as the Presidential election is less than five
(5) days away.
Furthermore, top secret briefing of the
Presidential candidates has already begun and if
Obama is not a “natural born” citizen or citizen at all
for that matter, his briefing is placing all American
citizens and the United States of America in grave
  1. Obama Was Born in Mombosa, Kenya and
Therefore is not a “Natural Born” United
States Citizen
Upon investigation into the alleged birth of
Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is
reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals,
Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The
Rainbow Edition News Letter, published by the
Education Laboratory School, produced in its
November 2004 Edition an article from an interview
with Obama and his half-sister, Maya Soetoro, in
which the publication reports that Obama was born
August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in
Honolulu, Hawaii. Four years later, in a February
2008 interview with the Hawaiian newspaper Star
Bulletin, Maya Soetoro states that her half-brother,
Obama, was born August 4, 1961, this time in
Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children.
Through extensive investigation, learned that
Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Obama’s
biological father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s
mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to
register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born”
United States Citizen. The laws on the books at the
time of Obama’s birth required the U.S. Citizen to
have resided in the Untied States for ten (10) years,
five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14).
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born

in Kenya. Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952;
United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281
F.3d 501 (2002); Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88
(2d Cir.1998). The Birth of Obama in Kenya has been
For above aforementioned reasons, Obama’s
mother could have only registered Obama’s birth in
the United States as a “naturalized” citizen. A
“naturalized” United States citizen is not eligible to
run for and/or hold the Office of the Presidency.
  1. Obama Became a “Natural” Citizen of
Indonesia when his Indonesian
Stepfather Legally Acknowledged Obama
as his Son and/or Adopted Obama.
In or about 1965, when Obama was
approximately six (6) years old, his mother, Stanley
Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of
Indonesia, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. A
minor child follows the naturalization and
citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further
issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian
stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either (1) signed an
acknowledgement legally “acknowledging” Obama as
his son or (2) adopted Obama, either of which
changed any citizenship status of Obama to a
“natural citizen” of Indonesia.
Obama admits in his book, Dreams from my
Father, that after his mother’s marriage to Lolo
Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly.
Obama and his mother left for Indonesia a couple of
months thereafter. Obama admits that, when he
arrived in Indonesia, he had already been enrolled in
Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia a public
school. Lolo Soetoro could not have enrolled Obama
in school unless Obama was a citizen of Indonesia
and bore the surname of his Indonesian father, Lolo
Soetoro. Petitioner has received copies of the school
registration, in which it clearly states Obama’s name
as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as
Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro.
The registration of a child in the public schools in
Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the
Government Records on file with the Governmental
Agencies, to ensure the student is in fact an
Indonesian citizen and the child is registered under
their legal name. Indonesia was under strict rule
and did not allow foreign students to attend their
public schools.
Under Indonesian law, when a male
acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son —
in this case Obama — to be an Indonesian State
citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law
No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 dated 1 Aug. 2006
concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia; Law
No. 9 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration
Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undangundang
Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk
Wetboek voor Indonesie).
Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption
law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the
adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth
parents, and the adopted child is given the same
status as a natural child. Indonesian Constitution,
Article 2.
For these reasons, Obama, his parents and/or
his guardian would have been required to file
applications with the U. S. State Department and
follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized
citizen in the United States, when he returned from
Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to
follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed
to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual
citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize
neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.
In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual
citizenship, neither did the United States, and since
Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the
United States would not step in or interfere with the
laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.
In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama
back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age
upon his return to Hawaii.
As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural”
citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama
could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status,
if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only
become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed
with the U.S. State Department, in which case,
Obama would have received a Certification of
Petitioner is informed, believes and thereon
alleges Obama was never naturalized in the United
States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years
old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his
grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with
him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of
Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama
had ever been applied for, Obama would have a
Certification of Citizenship.
  1. Obama Traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan
and India in 1981, when he was Twenty
(20) Years Old on his Indonesian Passport
Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and
Southern India in 1981. The relations between
Pakistan and India were extremely tense and
Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The
country was filled with Afghan refugees; and
Pakistan's Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence
Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the
Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of
recruiting radicalized Muslim men--jihadists--from
around the world to fight against the Soviet Union.
Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State
Department's travel ban list for U.S. Citizens. Non-
Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored
by their embassy for official business. A Muslim
citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian
passport would have success entering Indonesia,
Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama
traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the
Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal
every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels
to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty
(20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S.
citizen, which we doubt, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides
loss of nationality by native born citizens upon
"taking an oath or making an affirmation or other
formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign
state...after having attained the age of eighteen
years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1).
In response to all the requests for Obama to
produce proof of his citizenship, Obama allowed three
different web sites,, and to
post, on their web site an image of a Certification of
Live Birth with Obama’s name on it, an image
purported to be Obama’s birth certificate. The image
placed on these web sites shows a Hawaiian
document which is typically provided for children’s
births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births
abroad which have been registered in Hawaii
regardless of whether the citizenship status was
“natural born” or “naturalized”. Thus, the image did
not prove Obama’s citizenship status as a “natural
born” United States Citizen. The images placed on
these three (3) web sites were later discovered to be
altered and forged images.
The citizenship status of Defendant Obama is
a critical issue, an issue which needs to be addressed
and confirmed prior to any election of our United
States President so as to uphold the eligibility
requirements in Article II, Section I of the United
States Constitution. If Defendant Obama’s
citizenship and his eligibility — or lack thereof — to
serve as President of the United States is not
confirmed prior to the Presidential election, and if
Defendant Obama is elected and later found that he
is not eligible to serve as the President of the United
States, the consequences could provide long-term
damage to America.
Moreover, if Defendant Obama is found not to
be a “natural born” United States citizen and
permitted to serve as President, it would allow
variances from our United States Constitution
without due process of law. If this were to occur it
would set precedence, and further variances from our
United States Constitution would be allowed without
due process of law; ultimately, all citizens of the
United States would no longer enjoy the same
protections secured by the United States
It is imperative to immediately verify and
confirm Defendant Obama’s eligibility or lack
thereof, to serve as President of the United States.
If Obama is found to be ineligible to serve as
President of the United States, it is imperative to
have his name removed from the ballot and remove
his nomination urgently to afford the citizens of the
United States to have a properly vetted and qualified
Democratic candidate in which to cast their votes.
Citizens of the United States should never be
left with questions regarding the eligibility or
ineligibility of any Presidential candidate. If these
issues are not dealt with urgently we are at grave
risk of a Constitutional crisis in the United States of
The District Court reviewed the Defendants,
the DNC, Obama and the FEC’s Motions to Dismiss
and issued his Memorandum and Order granting the
Defendants Motions to Dismiss based on standing.
The Court found “[A] voter fails to present an injuryin-
fact when the alleged harm is abstract and widely
shared or is only derivative of a harm experienced by
a candidate” quoting Crist v. Comm’n on Presidential
Debatest, 262 F.3d at 193, 194 (2d Cir. 2001); Jones
v. Bush, 122 F.Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex. 2000) at 717
(holding that harm experienced by “Petitioner[s] and
all other American citizens” was too “undifferentiated
and general nature” to confer standing on voters).
“The alleged harm to voters stemming from a
presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the
eligibility requirement of the Natural Born Citizen
Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to
constitute an injury in fact sufficient to satisfy
Article III standing. See Hollander v. McCain, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 at *12 (noting that such
harm “would adversely affect only the generalized
interest of all citizens in the constitutional
Moreover, Judge Surrick on P. 11, footnote 9
states “By contrast, Petitioner would have us derail
the democratic process by invalidating a candidate
for whom millions of people voted and who
underwent excessive vetting during what was one of
the most hotly contested presidential primaries in
living memory.”
This statement is completely inaccurate and
assumes facts not in evidence. The entire purpose of
filing suit is because Obama has not been vetted; his
qualifications and eligibility have not been verified.
Although, American citizens have been questioning
Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the
United States, Obama and the DNC have failed and
refused to prove and/or show his eligibility to serve
as President of the United States. Petitioner as well
as all citizens of the United States do not have a way
to verify the qualifications and/or eligibility to run for
and/or serve as the United States President, nor is
there any United States Law or mention in the

United States Constitution the process in which is to
be conducted to ensure the qualifications and/or
eligibility of Presidential candidates.
The Court’s ruling failed to address the issues
regarding the Request for Admissions deemed
Admitted and Petitioner’s Summary Judgment
  1. The Memorandum and Order of Judge
Surrick Reflects Widespread Uncertainty
over the Meaning of Standing, which
this Court Alone Can Dispel.
The very essence of civil liberty, wrote Chief
Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
137 (1803), certainly consists in the right of every
individual to claim the protection of the laws,
whenever he receives an injury. Against the
backdrop of historical Supreme Court precedent
beginning with Marbury and extending through
Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services
Inc., __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008), the better23
informed “test” for the injury-in-fact prong of the
standing doctrine analysis more resembles a “sliding
scale” of factors and variables operating as a function
of the speculative nature and/or remoteness of the
allegations. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962);
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 (1972);
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61
(1992); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising
Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Federal Election
Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998); Sprint
Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Services Inc., __
U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2531 (2008); Friends of the Earth v.
Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., 528 U.S. 167,
184 (2000).
In Morton, this Court held that the
environmentalist Petitioners had standing, as injury
to “aesthetic and environmental well-being” was

enough to adequately constitute personal “stake” and
injury in fact. 405 U.S. at 734. Subsequently, in
Hunt, this Court held that despite a lack of personal
“stake,” an association has standing to bring suit so
long as the interests in question are relevant to the
organization’s purpose and regardless of whether the
claims asserted or relief requested involve the
individual members of the organization. 432 U.S. at
  1. Furthermore, in Laidlaw, a case stemming
from noncompliance with the Clean Water Act, this
Court noted the importance of a Petitioner’s
demonstration of standing but followed up by stating
that “it is wrong to maintain that citizen Petitioners
facing ongoing violations never have standing to seek
civil penalties.” 528 U.S. at 184. More recently, in
Akins, this Court rendered a decision maintaining
that individual voters’ inability to obtain alleged
public information met the injury in fact
requirement, as it helped to ensure that the Court
will adjudicate “a concrete, living contest between
adversaries.” 524 U.S. at 21. Similarly and finally,
in APCC, decided by this Court in June 2008, the
conventional, “personal stake” approach promulgated
in cases such as Lujan and Baker gave way to the
idea that the “personal stake” requirement and the
three requirements of standing — injury in fact,
causation and redressibility — are “flip sides of the
same coin” and are simply two different ways of
ensuring that each case or controversy presents “that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so
largely depends for illumination.” APCC, 128 S.Ct.
at 2543.
The case at hand may lack the specificity of
injury in fact required by Lujan, but the allegations
from which the action arises are no more speculative
or remote than the importance of environmental
aesthetics of Morton or the party disconnect evident
in Hunt. The foundation of the claims presented by
Mr. Berg, the will to avoid a certain constitutional
crisis, certainly amount to a “personal stake,” but in
the case that this Court may deem otherwise, the
underlying claims absolutely present the adversarial
contest under which standing was found in the
recent decisions in Akins and APCC.
Without a doubt, the Respondents will note
that the premise behind Akins was the failure to
obtain information, and will attempt to distinguish
APCC because it involves standing in the context of
contracts, assignors and assignees. However, Mr.
Berg has indeed sought information vital to the
election process put forth in the U.S. Constitution,
and this Court in APCC stated that, apart from
historical precedent for permitting suits by assignees
under assignments for collection, “[i]n any event, we
find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article
III standing requirements articulated in more recent
decisions of this Court.” Furthermore, this Court’s
treatment of the standing doctrine in APCC should
be enough to show that the reasoning exhibited by
the district court judge, grounded in Lujan,
misperceives the three prongs of standing as
enunciated just four months ago by this Court.
Therefore, because of the reasons stated above,
because of the “sliding scale” nature of a “test” for
injury in fact, because the very essence of civil liberty
certainly consists in the right of every individual to
claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives
an injury, this Court should hold that Mr. Berg has
standing to prosecute this action and reverse the
decision from the district court which maintains
  1. The Memorandum and Order from the
District Court are Incorrect. The
Promises made by Obama and the DNC
Clearly Fall Under Promissory Estoppel
Barack Obama and the DNC made promises to
the Petitioner and to the American people,
reasonably expecting — in fact, counting on the idea
— that the promises would induce reliance, those
promises induced the Petitioner to expend money
and billable hours and the American public to donate
more than $600 million to Obama’s campaign, and
injustice can only be avoided by adjudication in this
A cause of action under promissory estoppel
arises when a party relies to his detriment on the
intentional or negligent representations of another
party, so that in order to prevent the relying party
from being harmed, the inducing party is estopped
from showing that the facts are not as the relying
party understood them to be. Thomas v. E.B. Jermyn
Lodge No. 2, 693 A.2d 974, 977 (Pa. Super. 1997)
(citing Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community
College, 539 A.2d 1298, 1306 (Pa. Super.), app.
denied, 555 A.2d 116 (1988)). Promissory estoppel is
applied to enforce a promise which is not supported
by a binding contract. Carlson v. Arnot-Ogden Mem’l.
Hosp., 918 F.2d 411, 416 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding
promissory estoppel is unwarranted in light of court’s
finding that parties formed an enforceable contract);
Bosum Rho v.Vanguard OB/GYN Assocs., P.C.,
No.Civ.A.98-167, 1999 WL 228993, at *6 (E.D.Pa.
Apr. 15, 1999).
With regard to the doctrine of promissory
estoppel, it is manifested, and not actual, intent
which is paramount. The question is not what
Obama and the DNC actually intended, as Judge
Surrick claimed in his Memorandum, but rather
what the Petitioner and the American public, as
promises, were justified in understanding that intent
to be. There is no sound reason to suffer the harms
in question because the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania incorrectly dismissed the
Promissory Estoppel claim. Judge Surrick claimed
the DNC’s promises were not actually promises but
instead of statement of intentions. Judge Surrick
went on further claiming, “The ‘promises’ that

Petitioner identifies arc statements of principle and
intent in the political realm. They are not enforceable
promises under contract law. Indeed, our political
system could not function if every political message
articulated by a campaign could be characterized as
a legally binding contact enforceable by individual
voters. Of course, voters are free to vote out of office
those politicians seen to have breached campaign
promises and Federal courts, however, are not and
cannot be in the business of enforcing political
The DNC and Obama made promises in
writing which were posted on their website to lure
people to donate money based on their promises. The
DNC named this document “Renewing America’s
Promise,” which presents the 2008 Democratic
National Platform. In this document, the DNC
promises among other things “use technology to
make government more transparent, accountable
and inclusive,” “maintain and restore our
Constitution to its proper place in our government
and return our Nation to the best traditions,
including their commitment to government by law”
and “work fully to protect and enforce the
fundamental Constitutional right of every American
vote — to ensure that the Constitution’s promise is
fully realized”.
Obama placed on his website and stated on
national television his promise to open and honest
Government and his promise to truthfully answer
any questions asked of him.
As a result of his detrimental reliance on these
promises, Petitioner donated money and billable
hours to Democratic Presidential candidates as well
as the Democratic National Committee.
The DNC did in fact break promises by
promoting an illegal candidate to run for and serve, if
elected, as President of the United States, clearly in
violation of the United States Constitution and in
violation of their promise to enforce the fundamental
Constitutional rights of every American voter.
Furthermore, Obama has not answered, in an honest
manner, questions about his citizenship. Moreover,
Obama has breached his promise to uphold our
Constitution; Obama is a Constitutional lawyer and
teacher and is well aware he is ineligible to serve as
the United States President. This is hardly an
example of being open and honest, this is hardly an
example of open and honest government, and it is
neither the way to uphold our United States
Constitution, nor the Oath of Office taken by Obama.
  1. The District Court Erred in Dismissing
the Action for Lack of Jurisdiction and
the Error was by no Means Harmless
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Because the
Outcome Would have been Different Save
for the Erroneous Dismissal.
The district court erred in dismissing the
action on grounds that it was not one within the
jurisdiction of the court, as it directly involved the
construction and application of the United States
Constitution, and such an error cannot be deemed
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as the outcome
of the case would likely have been different save for
the erroneous dismissal. Chapman v. California, 386
U.S. 18, 24 (1967); Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U.S.
487, 491 (1902). While Chapman involved a case
which arose from jury nullification and Fifth
Amendment issues, this Court nonetheless placed
emphasis on the intention of the harmless-error
standard to not treat as harmless constitutional
errors which affected the “substantial rights” of a
party, and held that before a constitutional error
may be deemed harmless, the Court must be capable
of discerning that it was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof falls on the
non-prejudiced party to do so. 386 U.S. at 24.
Furthermore, in Swafford, this Court held that an
action brought in federal court cannot be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction, no matter the perceived lack
of merit of the averments within, when the very
heart of the controversy arises from a guideline put
forth by America’s founders and guaranteed by the
constitution and, therefore, is very much a federal
question. 105 U.S. at 493.
In this case, citing the criteria put forth by this
Court in Chapman, the district court’s error in
dismissing Mr. Berg’s action for lack of proper
jurisdiction must not be considered harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt as, without the improper
dismissal, the outcome of the case would have likely
been different. Furthermore, considering the
guidelines put forth by this Court in Swafford and
the mere fact that Mr. Berg’s allegations arise from
Article II, Section 1 of the United States
Constitution, the action improperly dismissed by the
district court runs to the very heart of the
requirements and guidelines and ideas and ideals
put forth by the framers of America’s founding
documents and is, therefore, very much a federal
question and well within the jurisdiction of the
district court.
For the aforementioned reasons, the district
court’s error in dismissing Mr. Berg’s action on
grounds of lack of jurisdiction was by no means
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, this
Court should reverse the decision rendered by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania and here the merits of the case.
  1. The District Court Erred in Holding
Petitioner has not Suffered Injury in Fact
and Will Continue to Suffer if an
Ineligible Candidate is Elected and
Allowed to Take the Office of the
Petitioner has been damaged financially for all
monies donated, billable hours spent supporting the

Democratic candidates, taxes paid by Petitioner
which went to the Secret Service for their protection
of Obama for the past twenty-one (21) months
and for the financial costs and time expended of this
litigation, when Defendants could have very easily
investigated, verified and obtained proof of Obama's
eligibility to serve as President of the United States,
if in fact he is eligible.
Petitioner has suffered damage to his
reputation and discrimination as a result of
attempting to protect his rights and verify the
eligibility of Obama to serve as President of the
United States. Petitioner has been repeatedly called
a racist and verbally assaulted for bringing forward
this lawsuit against Obama. Petitioner is not a
racist and is a paid Life Member of the NAACP.
Petitioner has attempted to obtain the
verification and proof requested herein by way of
requests, filing this action, Request for Admissions
and Request for Production of Documents served
upon Defendants September 15, 2008, the DNC and
Obama never answered the Request for Admissions
and they are therefore deemed admitted, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 36 and by Subpoenas
served upon agencies who could supply the
documentation to prove Obama’s citizenship status.
To date, Petitioner has not received anything.
Petitioner’s rights guaranteed under the
Liberty clause of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment of
the United States Constitution have already been
violated. It has been announced in the main stream
media that Obama’s “briefing” has already begun
into our National Secrets, our Nations Top Secrets,
which Obama is not privy too and in violation of our
National Security, as Obama is not a legal citizen of
the United States. This has placed Petitioner and
other citizens of the United States in grave danger.
Petitioner’s Liberty as guaranteed will further be
violated if Obama is allowed to be voted into and
assume the position of President of the United
States; Petitioner will be further damaged and is in
serious jeopardy.
Petitioner is forced to live with the
consequences if an ineligible candidate is elected and
allowed to serve as President of the United States. It
will alter the United States Constitution without
proper due process of law. It will set precedence and
further violations of our United States Constitution
will continue without due process of law and our
rights secured by the United States Constitution will
no longer protect citizens of the United States.
For the above aforementioned reasons, the
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment
should be granted.
Dated: October 30, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in Pro Se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134


Plaintiff, pro se, here in request the court to make an immediate decision on all 3 pending Motions before this court, for the Plaintiff, and call by phone the Plaintiff and Defendant to notify of Courts decision that immediate notifications can be publically announced that a stay of election might be developed with the current U.S. President George W. Bush by executive order.

           Dated and Signed this 3rd Day of November, 2008-11-03

                                  Cody Robert Judy
                                    Pro Se


 Postage pre-paid, to the DEFENDANT(s) at :
Rew R Goodenow Esq,
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 750
Reno, NV. 89501

This 3rd day of November, 2008 __________________________
                                                        Signature of Mailer
Back To Main Law Suit