BERG V OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF (1230292) - Transport Room

Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 1
Court of Appeals Case No. 09-5362
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_____________ Ο _____________
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
____________ Ο _____________
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia
____________ Ο _____________
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Oral Argument is Requested
Appendix Filed Separately
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: philjberg@gmail.com
Attorney in Pro Se and as Relator on

behalf of the Government of the
United States
1
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND

RELATED CASES
A. Parties
1.) PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE in pro se

On 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 ATTORNEY’S OFFICE and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Hereinafter at times “The Government”]
Respondents – Appellees
B. Rulings Under Review

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 is Berg 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 Relator’s
Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. 21
i
Attached to the Appendix as Exhibit “2”;

and
September 21, 2009 Final Order Denying Relator’s Motion for

Reconsideration, Docket No. 22
Attached to the Appendix as Exhibit “3”
C. Related Cases
To Counsel’s 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,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Dated: February 16, 2010 ___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659
Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on

United States
ii
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S RULE 26.1

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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).
iii
REASONS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HEARD
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 Court’s questions and concerns.
iv
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 Citizen……………………11-18
B. Appellant was entitled to the Discovery used

in the Government’s Decision to Dismiss
Appellant’s Qui Tam (FCA) Action…………………..…..18-19
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
Page(s)
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……………………………………………20-27
D. The District Court erred in denying the Appellant’s

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
vi
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
vii
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 Court’s
* 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
viii
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
ix
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 3……………………………………………………6, 9, 11
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Page(s)
Rule 59……………………………………………………………………..27
* Rule 59(e)…………………………………………………………...….27. 28
Rule 60(a)…………………………………………………………………..29
x
Page(s)
INDONESIAN LAWS
Asian Law Digests

*
INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 4.02 …………………….………11, 12, 13, 15
Asian Law Digests

* INDONESIA LAW DIGEST 9.02…………………………………………12
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 Relator’s Suit Lacks Merit,
What is Government’s Duty to the Contractor?
Legal Times (February 28, 2000), at 30-31……………………………...…17
xi
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
xii
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 Appellant’s 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 Relator’s 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 Government’s
Conflict-of-Interest as Barack Hussein Obama was the sitting President and
1
their boss. Appellant was not afforded a hearing or chance to be heard,
although he requested such, and Appellant’s 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 Relator’s Qui Tam
(False Claims) Action?

Columbia erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in
failing to address the issues regarding the Government’s Conflict-of-
Interest in representing President Barack Hussein Obama in the
Court’s Order Dismissing the Relator’s Qui Tam (False Claims)
Action?

Columbia erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by
Denying Appellant’s Request for Discovery of the Evidence and/or
Documents used by the Government in their determination to seek
Dismissal of the Relator’s Qui Tam (False Claims) Action? and

Columbia erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by
Denying Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration based on the new
2
law discovered regarding the Government’s Conflict-of-Interest in

representing our now President, Barack Hussein Obama?
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
To Counsel’s 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.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case is a Qui Tam (False Claims) Action which raises very
important questions.
Appellant has serious questions into the citizenship status of Barack
Hussein Obama, the Appellee herein and the fact the Appellee obtained
monies from the Federal Government based on false claims that he was a
United States citizen eligible to hold the Office of a United States Senator
for Illinois.
Evidence points to the facts that Appellee was born in Mombassa,
Kenya on August 4, 1961 and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not old
enough to confer U.S. natural born citizenship onto Appellee. Appellee’s
father was a foreign citizen and never a citizen of the United States.
3
Moreover, Appellant believes Appellee’s 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 Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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
4
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 1960’s, early 1970’s 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.
5
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
Appellant’s Qui Tam (False Claims) Action. The Government does have
6
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 Government’s
Dismissal.
Throughout the litigation of the within case, Appellant learned the
U.S. Attorney’s 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
7
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 Obama’s Presidential campaign;
and served as one of three [3] members on Appellee’s 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.
Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is attached to the Appendix as
EXHIBIT “1”. The District Court’s Order of Dismissal is attached to the
Appendix as EXHIBIT “2” and the District Court’s Order of denial of
Appellant’s 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
8
appointed; and Appellant must be allowed to litigate the within case on
behalf of the Government.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court’s review is plenary, based on the issues presented in this
Appeal which include the District Court’s abuse of discretion and the
District Court’s error in formulating and applying legal precepts. In
addition, this Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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).
9
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 increasingly
sophisticated fraud…Part of the solution – something I consider
essential to any meaningful improvements in cutting down
fraud – is the establishment of a solid partnership between
public law enforcers…The Federal government has a big job on
its hands as it attempts to ensure he integrity of the nearly $1
trillion we spend each year on various programs and
procurement. That job is simply too big if government officials
are working alone”
Congress’s 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 Appellee’s legal name is still Barry Soetoro and not
10
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 Appellant’s 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.
11
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.
Appellee’s 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
12
identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu 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 child’s name and citizenship status. See
13
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, Appellee’s 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.
Appellee’s 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
14
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 “5”1.
Appellant has been unable to locate any record of Appellee legally
changing his name from Barry Soetoro back to Barack Hussein Obama.
Therefore, Appellee’s 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 mother’s 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)
15
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
16
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 Obama’s 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
17
Tam case may constitute a violation of the Government’s contractual duty of
good faith and fair dealing. See John Chierichella & Louis Victorino, A Qui
Tam Conundrum; When Relator’s Suit Lacks Merit, What is Government’s
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 Appellant’s 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 Appellee’s 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 Appellant’s 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 GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO DISMISS
APPELLANT’S QUI TAM (FCA) ACTION
Appellant furnished the Government and the Lower Court with the
evidence pointing to the fact Appellee, Barack Hussein Obama’s legal name
is Barry Soetoro and the fact he is an Indonesian citizen.
18
In addition, Appellant raised the issue pertaining to Appellee’s
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 Soetoro’s name to Barack Hussein Obama?
Appellant has clearly shown a substantial threshold entitling him to
discovery relating to the Government’s prosecutorial decision to seek
dismissal of the Relator’s 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 Government’s Motion to retain the documents filed in
relation to the Government’s investigation of a Qui Tam Complaint under
seal.
19
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
Holder’s 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. Obama’s Presidential campaign;
and served as one of three [3] members on Appellee Obama’s Vice-
20
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, 18
USC § 205.
21
 A prohibition on certain acts by government employees

affecting a personal financial interest—applying, inter alia, to
negotiations for post-government employment, 18 USC § 208.
5 CFR § 2635.101 states in pertinent part, “(a) Public service is a
public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States
Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and
ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have
complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each
employee shall respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set
forth in this section, as well as the implementing standards contained in this
part and in supplemental agency regulations. (b) General principles. The
following general principles apply to every employee and may form the
basis for the standards contained in this part. Where a situation is not
covered by the standards set forth in this part, employees shall apply the
principles set forth in this section in determining whether their conduct is
proper. (1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place
loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private
gain…5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their
duties. (6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments
or promises of any kind purporting to bind the Government…(14)
Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that
22
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
23
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 would

raise a question regarding his impartiality should use the process
described in §2635.502 to determine whether he should or should not
participate 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 particular
matter will have a direct and predictable effect on that interest. The
restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 208 are described more fully in 5 CFR
2635.401 and 2635.402.”
“(1) Particular matter. The term “particular matter” includes only

matters that involve deliberation, decision, or action that is focused
upon the interests of specific persons, or a discrete and identifiable
class of persons. The term may include matters which do not involve
formal parties and may extend to legislation or policy making that is
narrowly focused on the interests of a discrete and identifiable class
24
of persons. It does not, however, cover consideration or adoption of

broad 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, accusation
or 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's
involvement 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 involvement
on an administrative or peripheral issue. A finding of substantiality
should be based not only on the effort devoted to the matter, but also
on 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 a
“direct” 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 particular
matter will not have a direct effect on a financial interest, however, if
the chain of causation is attenuated or is contingent upon the
occurrence of events that are speculative or that are independent of,
and unrelated to, the matter. A particular matter that has an effect on
a financial interest only as a consequence of its effects on the general
economy does not have a direct effect within the meaning of this
part.”
“(ii) A particular matter will have a “predictable” effect if there is a

real, as opposed to a speculative, possibility that the matter will
25
affect the financial interest. It is not necessary, however, that the

magnitude of the gain or loss be known, and the dollar amount of the
gain or loss is immaterial.”
Eric Holder joined President Obama’s Presidential Campaign as
Senior Legal Advisor and also served as one of three [3] members on
Obama’s 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 General’s 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”.
26
This Qui Tam action is against our now President based on the salary
and expenses drawn when he served as the United States Senator for Illinois
by false and fraudulent means. Litigation of this Case could impact
Appellee Obama’s Presidential position, which the government is well
aware of and due to the governments’ Conflict-Of-Interest with this Case,
their decisions are being clouded.
If United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his staff and Office,
including the United States Department of Justice are not conflicted out,
then justice will never be served. If Mr. Holder allows the action to go
forward, he is at great risk of losing his position, which is a financial
interest, as he would lose his government pay. United States Attorney
General Holder is aware of this and for this reason will never allow a Qui
Tam action which bears the name Barack Hussein Obama to go forward.
Any involvement by United States Attorney General Eric Holder and/or any
of his staff which he over-sees in this Qui Tam case are clear violations of
the Code of Federal Regulations and the United States Codes.
The District Court erred and/or abused its discretion in failing to
address or take into account the Conflict-Of-Interest, which exists in this
case, and appoint a Special Prosecutor to handle the matter.
27
D. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE

APELLANT’S 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
28
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, it’s 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 Court’s
Dismissal of the Qui Tam (FCA) Action had been met. The District Court
erred and/or abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
29
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,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Dated: February 16, 2010 ___________________________
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659

United States
30
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 s/ Philip J. Berg

______________________________

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.

______________________________

United States
31
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 ______________________________

s/ Philip J. Berg

United States
32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire hereby certify that Appellant’s 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 Staff
Room 7214
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Email: Eric.fleisig-greene@usdoj.gov
R. Craig Lawrence
United States Attorney’s Office
Civil Division
555 Fourth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Email: craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov
Mark B. Stern
DOJ Civil Division, Appellate Staff
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Email: mark.stern@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Appellees Barack Hussein Obama and the Government
33
Moreover, I certify I will serve by United States Postal Service with
postage fully prepared seven (7) hard copies upon the Clerk of this Court
and one (1) hard copy upon Counsel of Record for the Appellees.

______________________________
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Fx: (610) 834-7659
Email: Philjberg@gmail.com

United States
34

BERG V OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF (1230292) - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BERG V OBAMA (FCA CASE APPEAL) - APPELLANT BRIEF (1230292) - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 09-5362 Document: 1230292 Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 1

Court of Appeals Case No. 09-5362

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

PHILIP J. BERG on his own behalf and as RELATOR on behalf of the

Appeal from the United States District Court

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

Attorney in Pro Se and as Relator on

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND

1.) PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE in pro se

2.) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

B. Rulings Under Review

June 09, 2009 Order Dismissing the Case, Docket No. 16

Attached to the Appendix as Exhibit “2”;

September 21, 2009 Final Order Denying Relator’s Motion for

To Counsel’s 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.

Appellant in Pro Se and as Relator on

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S RULE 26.1

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).

REASONS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HEARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a), Appellant

respectfully requests oral argument. Appellant believes that oral argument

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT…………………………….iii

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT………………………………….…iv

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES…………………………………..…3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………………………………………...3-8

A. Appellee was “Not” Constitutionally eligible to

B. Appellant was entitled to the Discovery used

TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued

C. The Government had and has a Conflict-of-Interest

D. The District Court erred in denying the Appellant’s

IDENTICAL PDF AND HARD COPY CERTIFICATE………………….30

VIRUS SCAN CERTIFICATE…………………………………………….30

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)…………………31

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415,

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec.,

District of Columbia Circuit Cases

Firestone v. Firestone, 316 U.S. App. D.C. 152,

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued

All Other Circuit Courts, Continued

Still v. Towsend, 311 F.2d 23 (6th Cir. 1962)…………..………………….28

United States District Courts

* United States ex rel. Mikes v. Strauss,

All other Court’s

* Soetoro v. Soetoro, First Circuit Family Court,

* 18 U.S.C. § 208……………………………………...……………..21, 23, 24

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Continued

FEDERAL STATUTES, Continued

* 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 through 3733………………………………………….…1

Nationality Act of 1940……………………………………….……………14

Chapter 57 - §57-8 (1955)…………………………………………….…….4

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR)