Philip J. Berg

Last updated

In response to the conspiracy theories, the White House released the President's long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, reaffirming that he was born at 7:24 pm on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate.jpg
In response to the conspiracy theories, the White House released the President's long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, reaffirming that he was born at 7:24 pm on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Philip Jay Berg (born April 13, 1944), previously an American attorney, brought a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit charging president George W. Bush and 154 others with complicity in the September 11 attacks, and another suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become President of the United States.

Contents

Berg, whose office was in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, is a former chairman of the Democratic Party of Montgomery County, in suburban Philadelphia and a former member of the Democratic State Committee. He is a paid life member of the NAACP.

He is a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania.

On June 19, 2013, Berg's license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was suspended for two years. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced on June 16, 2015, that Berg was disbarred on consent after submitting a letter of resignation that the court kept under seal. [1] After being disbarred, he worked as an Uber driver in Philadelphia. [2]

Activism

Berg has involved himself with several controversial political cases. In 2001 he demanded the disbarment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas due to their participation in the case Bush v. Gore. [3] In 2004, Berg filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit on behalf of a World Trade Center maintenance worker against President George W. Bush and others alleging that the Bush administration and certain government officials conspired to bring about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. [4] The federal district court dismissed the suit. He challenged President George W. Bush on his right to conduct a war against terror and another against Saddam Hussein without a congressional authorization. [5]

Malpractice and ethics violations

Berg was sued for legal malpractice by former clients on whose behalf Berg had neglected to file a response to a complaint in an ERISA lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the former clients. Berg responded by bringing into the malpractice suit the plaintiffs in the ERISA action on a claim of fraud upon the court. The ERISA plaintiffs moved for summary judgment—which was granted after Berg failed to respond to the motion—and then moved for sanctions against Berg. Berg again failed to file a response.

On June 2, 2005, U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted the motion for sanctions, finding that the fraud claim "was inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him." Observing that an attorney's signature on a complaint constitutes, among other things, a certification that the signer has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the grounds for the claim asserted, the court further found that "even the most limited investigation would have revealed that [Berg] had no standing to raise such a claim." The court also found that Berg's claim was motivated by a "desire to harass" and "delay litigation." The court fined Berg $10,000 and ordered him to attend six hours of ethics training. [6] [7]

On June 19, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered Berg suspended for two years for neglecting the 2006 federal lawsuit, stating that he filed the lawsuit on the last day for filing and subsequently "did virtually nothing to prosecute his client's claim," resulting in the case being dismissed. Berg then failed to notify his client of the dismissal and "over the next two years . . . mostly ignored his client's requests for updates" while leading her "to believe that her case was still viable." As aggravating factors in supporting the suspension, it was noted that Berg failed to "express adequate remorse" or apologize to the client. Also noted was his extensive disciplinary history, including a private reprimand in 2005 for commingling funds, an informal admonition in 2006 for neglect of a matter that resulted in dismissal of a client's case and a private reprimand and one year probation imposed in 2008 for failing to pursue a workers' compensation matter. [8]

In January 2014, Berg resigned from the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States after it had previously ordered him to explain why he should not be expelled. Berg stated his intention to reapply for membership once the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania restored his law license. [9]

Berg was disbarred on consent from practicing law in Pennsylvania; the state Supreme Court announced on June 16, 2015, that he had submitted a letter of resignation that the court kept under seal. The court said that he had neglected to inform a client that a judge had dismissed her lawsuit. The court said his client went two years without learning of the dismissal. [1]

RICO lawsuit, Rodriguez v. Bush

In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush, accusing the President of the United States and 155 other parties of complicity in the September 11 attacks.

This 237-page civil lawsuit [10] [11] included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This lawsuit made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from "pods" affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create "American Gulag" concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government's plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. [11]

The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005. [12] On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed the claims against the US, DHS, and FEMA, and gave the plaintiff until July 7, 2006, to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants. [13]

The plaintiff failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of the claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006. [14]

Lawsuit concerning Barack Obama

Berg filed a complaint in federal district court on August 21, 2008, against Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, alleging that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and that the "Certificate of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery. [15] The court dismissed the complaint as "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." [16] [17] The judge also found that the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and that Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable." [16] [17] Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court and also sought an injunction to suspend the election. The injunction was denied by Justice David Souter on November 3, 2008. Berg also sought an application for injunction pending the disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari; Justice Souter denied it, Berg refiled and submitted it to Justice Anthony Kennedy (who denied it), then refiled and submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia, who referred it to the Court. On January 12, 2009, the Supreme Court denied Berg's petition for writ of certiorari (555 U.S. 1126), [18] and on January 21 the Court denied the application for injunction (555 U.S. 1134). [19]

Related Research Articles

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons that the filing party or parties believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Edward Davis (Ed) Fagan is a former American reparations lawyer who was disbarred for his conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

<i>Wilson v. Libby</i>

Wilson v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d 74, affirmed, 535 F.3d 697, was a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 13 July, 2006, by Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV, against Richard Armitage (individually) for allegedly revealing her identity and thus irresponsibly infringing upon her Constitutional rights and against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, and the unnamed others (together) because the latter, in addition, allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity." The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

H. Candace Gorman is a Chicago, Illinois-based civil-rights attorney, known for representing two Guantanamo detainees and also for her work to uncover secret "street files" maintained by the Chicago Police.

Jonathan Lee Riches is a convicted fraudster known for the many lawsuits he has filed in various United States district courts. Riches was incarcerated at Federal Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, for wire fraud under the terms of a plea bargain. His release date was April 30, 2012. He was arrested for violating his federal probation in December 2012, when he left the Eastern District of the state of Pennsylvania without permission. He allegedly drove to Connecticut and impersonated the uncle of Adam Lanza, the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

Paul Mpande Ngobeni is a South African lawyer who graduated from Hamilton College, New York. He has served on a task team advising the African National Congress on constitutional law matters where he assisted in designing its legal strategy for defending South African President Jacob Zuma against corruption charges. He has also served as a consultant for the South African Ministry of Housing on various legal matters, including transformation.

Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges, based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency, were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for, or being confirmed for, the Presidency of the United States, to declare his actions in office to be null and void, or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

<i>Saleh v. Bush</i>

Saleh v. Bush, 848 F.3d 880, was a class action lawsuit filed in 2013 against high-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration for their alleged involvement in premeditating and carrying out the Iraq War. In December 2014, the district court hearing the case ordered it dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Burns v. Hickenlooper</i>

Burns v. Hickenlooper is a lawsuit filed on July 1, 2014, in federal district court in Colorado, challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the fundamental right of marriage. The defendants agreed with the substance of the plaintiffs' case, but asked the district court to stay implementation of any order requiring Colorado to alter enforcement of its ban pending the outcome of other litigation. After the district court declined to grant more than a one-month stay on July 23, the state's governor and attorney general appealed and won a stay from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21. Following U.S. Supreme Court action in other cases, on October 8 they asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss their appeal and lift the stay, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in Colorado.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.

<i>Doe v. Trump</i> (2017) Lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019

Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017, and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019.

<i>Juliana v. United States</i> 2015 lawsuit

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states and the District of Columbia.

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the administration of the 2020 presidential election in four other states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.

In direct response to Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar and the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the purview of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the election processes of Pennsylvania. All of these have either been dismissed or dropped. The last two remaining cases were dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021. On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the November 3, 2020 election, the Supreme Court declined to hear the outstanding case brought by former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet, dismissing it without comment.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous civil lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

References

  1. 1 2 Clark, Dan (June 16, 2015). "Montgomery County attorney who held office in Lafayette Hill disbarred". The Times Herald. Retrieved June 16, 2015.
  2. ↑ Spikol, Liz (August 18, 2015). "Notorious Obama Birther Philip Berg Now Driving UberX in Philly". Philadelphia Magazine .
  3. ↑ "Attorney Phil Berg Demands Disbarment of Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas". Archive.democrats.com. December 12, 2001. Retrieved December 3, 2010.
  4. ↑ "Rodriguez RICO complaint". 911review.com. Retrieved December 3, 2010.
  5. ↑ "Wake Up, Anti-War People!: Phil Berg" . Retrieved December 3, 2010.
  6. ↑ "Holsworth v. Berg, No. 05-1116 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2005)" (PDF). Retrieved December 3, 2010.
  7. ↑ Duffy, Shannon P. (July 25, 2005). "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'". Legal Intelligencer . Retrieved November 26, 2008.
  8. ↑ "Court document" (PDF). pacourts.us. Retrieved April 24, 2023.
  9. ↑ Bravin, Jess (January 29, 2014). "Supreme Court Ousts Attorney Who Sued to Oust Obama". Wall Street Journal .
  10. ↑ "Rodriguez v Bush Lawsuit Docs From PACER". Archived from the original on October 15, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2009.
  11. 1 2 "Rodriguez Complaint from PACER" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2009.
  12. ↑ "Order Granting Motion to Transfer from PACER" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2009.
  13. ↑ "Order Dismissing Complaint against USA, DHS, and FEMA" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2009.
  14. ↑ "Order Dismissing Complaint against Balance of Defendants from PACER" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2009.
  15. ↑ "Birth certificate" (PDF). archives.gov. Retrieved April 24, 2023.
  16. 1 2 "Berg v. Obama, No. 08-1256 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2008) 574 F.Supp.2d 509 at 521, aff'd 586 F.3d 234" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2010. Retrieved December 3, 2010.
  17. 1 2 "Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot," Philadelphia Daily News , October 25, 2008. Archived October 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  18. ↑ Kevin Amerman, "Supreme Court won't hear Berg's appeal," The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.), January 16, 2009. Archived February 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  19. ↑ http://origin.www.supremecourt.gov/docket/08-570.htm [ permanent dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.