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.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

<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.

Legal malpractice is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by a lawyer during the provision of legal services that causes harm to a client.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Ciavarella</span> American convicted felon and former judge

Mark Arthur Ciavarella Jr. is an American convicted felon and former President Judge of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, who was involved, along with fellow judge Michael Conahan, in the "Kids for cash" scandal in 2008, for which he was sentenced to 28 years in federal prison in 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

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.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark case 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.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

<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.

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is 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 intervened as defendants, but were later dropped at their request following the 2016 presidential election.

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that a third-party defendant to a counterclaim submitted in a state-court civil action cannot remove their case to federal court. The Court explained, in a 5–4 decision, that although a third-party counterclaim defendant is a "defendant to a claim," removal can only be performed by the defendant to a "civil action." And this holds true even when the counterclaim is in the form of a class action. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 permits removal by "any defendant to a class action" but this does not extend removal rights to a third-party counterclaim defendant because they are not a defendant to the original case.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 63 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.

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 certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Texas Heartbeat Act</span> 2021 Act of the Texas Legislature on abortion

The Texas Heartbeat Act, Senate Bill 8, is an act of the Texas Legislature that bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which normally occurs after about six weeks of pregnancy. The law took effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers. It is the first time a state has successfully imposed a six-week abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, and the first abortion restriction to rely solely on enforcement by private individuals through civil lawsuits, rather than having state officials enforce the law with criminal or civil penalties. The act authorizes members of the public to sue anyone who performs or facilitates an illegal abortion for a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages per abortion, plus court costs and attorneys' fees.

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".
  11. 1 2 "Rodriguez Complaint from PACER" (PDF).
  12. ↑ "Order Granting Motion to Transfer from PACER" (PDF).
  13. ↑ "Order Dismissing Complaint against USA, DHS, and FEMA" (PDF).
  14. ↑ "Order Dismissing Complaint against Balance of Defendants from PACER" (PDF).
  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). 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.