United States District Court For The District of Columbia: Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-01933-RWR Document 17 Filed 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 28
Law Offices of:

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, pro se, on his :
own BEHALF and on BEHALF of the :
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES :
OF AMERICA, :
:
Relator,
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-cv-01933
:
vs. :
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, :
Defendant. :
:
RELATOR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
NOW COMES the Relator, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”], and hereby
submits the within Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order of June 9, 2009 on the
following grounds:
• Relator has discovered new law and new information pertaining to the Conflict-
of-Interest with both the United States Attorney General’s Office as well as the United States
Department of Justice;
• This Court never addressed the issue of the Conflict-of-Interest;
• A Conflict-of-Interest exists with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; the U.S.
Attorney General’s Office as well as the United States Department of Justice in violation of the
Federal Conflict-of-Interest Laws and the Code of Federal Regulations;
Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 1

• The Relator has met the burden and this Court has the inherent power to
Reconsider the Order issued June 9, 2009; and
• In the interest of Justice, this Court should grant the Relator’s Motion; Conflict
out U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General’s Office and the United States
Department of Justice. This Court has the inherent power to appoint the Relator or appoint a
Special Prosecutor should this Court feel it necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Dated: June 19, 2009 ____________________________
PHILIP J. BERG, Relator
Phone: (610) 825-3134

Law Offices of:

(610) 825-3134

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, pro se, on his :
own BEHALF and on BEHALF of the :
OF AMERICA, :
:
Relator,
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-cv-01933
:
vs. :
:
Defendant. :
:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PHILIP J. BERG, RELATOR’S,

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This Qui Tam based on the False Claims Act (FCA) action 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 Barry Soetoro a/k/a President Barack Hussein Obama
regarding his fraudulently holding the Office of United States Senator from Illinois and the fact
that 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 Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama’s

Presidential campaign; and served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s vice-presidential
selection committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest exists.
FURTHER, because of the uniqueness of this case, the Relator is addressing this Motion
to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as this Honorable Court and Relator requests a Hearing
on the matter if the within issues are unable to resolve between the Relator and U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder.
1. Relator Berg has honored the fact that this case was “Under Seal” until the
Honorable Richard W. Roberts, after requesting the position of the U.S. Justice
Department and U.S. Attorney General’s Office and after the Relator argued for the
Government or the Relator to proceed, dismissed this case with Prejudice on June 9,
2009.
2. The Government filed a Motion to Dismiss the Relator’s case and Relator
requested a Hearing pursuant to the FCA statute.
3. The Hearing was held on June 9, 2009 and in keeping with the “Sealed” status,
the doors to this Honor’s Courtroom were locked; the windows were covered; and there
was no one present except the Judge, Court staff and counsel.
4. When the Honorable Richard W. Roberts took the bench, he addressed Relator by
saying that since the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has taken the position that
Judges do not have input on False Claims Act cases, he would not give any opinion and
therefore, you [Relator Berg] must convince the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S.
Attorney General to proceed with this case by their handling it or to grant you, the

Relator, the authority to proceed. Unfortunately, the government was not in agreement;
however, they report directly to and give legal advice to the “alleged” violator.
5. The Government position is that the Relator, Berg, alleges in his lawsuit that
President Barack Hussein Obama defrauded the United States by taking his Senate salary
when he did not meet the citizenship requirements to hold a Senate seat, a correct
position. However, in an attempt to cloud the issue or rather prejudice this proceeding;
the Government states that the Relator, Berg, has made similar allegations in other
proceedings. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp 2d 509 (ED. Pa. 2008).
6. In their Response, The Department of Justice reviewed the Relator’s [Berg’s]
allegations, determined that they lack merit, and concluded that they therefore should
not be pursued on the United States’ behalf against its sitting President, again prejudicial
remarks as the Qui Tam proceeding is concerned with the defrauding of the U.S.
Government by Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama by running for and being a
U.S. Senator, when he wasn’t eligible.
7. Then the Government continued by stating, “See generally Memorandum Ruling,
Hollister v. Soetoro, Civ. No- 08-2254 (JR), slip op. at I (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2009)….”
Again, prejudicial to the case herein and an attempt by the Government to take the focus
off of the issue in this case.
8. The Government states that the Court of Appeals has recognized that 31 U.S.C. §
3730(c)(2)(A) gives the United States “virtually ‘unfettered’ discretion” to dismiss a Qui
Tam suit, including, as here, before the United States has made its election whether to
intervene. See (United States ex rel. Hoyte v. American National Red Cross, 518 F. 3d
61, 65 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 251-54 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

By affording Qui Tam Relators an opportunity for a “Hearing” if they request one,
Section 3730(c)(2)(A) gives Relators the chance to try to convince the United States to
change its mind but gives the Court no role in second-guessing the United States’
exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. See Hoyte, 518 F.3d at 65; Swift, 318 F.3d at 253.
The Court of Appeals has explained: “Nothing in § 3730(c)(2)(A) purports to deprive the
Executive Branch of its historical prerogative to decide which cases should go forward in
the name of the United States.” Swift, 318 F. 3d at 253. In the exercise of its discretion,
the United Slates has determined that this action should not proceed.
9. The Relator’s position is contra - the above is not completely true. First, the
Government has the choice to decline intervention and allow the Relator to prosecute the
case. Unlike the False Claim Act provisions relating to settlements, which are found in
Section 3730(c)(2)(B), there are absolutely no guidelines for the Court contained in 31
U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) for the Court to consider if the Government makes a Motion to
Dismiss as they have here. In United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange County v. Sunland
Packing Company, 912 F. Supp 1325, 1340 (E.D. Cal. 1995) aff’d, 151 F.3d 1139 (9th
Cir. 1998), a case of first impression, it was held that the Government’s right to dismiss
Qui Tam actions is subject to judicial review. The D.C. Circuit has declined to use the
Sequoia test, however they refer to the case in both Hoyte and Swift.
10. As this Court is aware, on or about January 31, 2009, the Relator, Berg, filed a
Motion to have the within case “Unsealed” and allow him to litigate the case as it had
been over sixty [60] days and the Government failed to respond, intervene or decline to
intervene.

11. The Government Responded to the Relator’s Motion and claimed they had not
been served. They then claimed in the same Response that they had not been served
correctly and therefore the sixty [60] day time frame had not begun to run. The
Government stated they had not yet had an opportunity to evaluate Relator’s allegations
and determine how to proceed. The Government stated they needed an additional sixty
[60] days to conduct their investigation. The Government stated, "In particular, counsel
for the United States need time to determine how best to proceed and seek proper
authority." Based on the Government’s statements and request, this Court granted the
Government an additional sixty [60] days to conduct their investigation.
12. 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 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.
13. The Government does have broad discretion to dismiss a False Claims Act;
however, they must meet the “rational relation” standard that is the substantive due
process analyses requirement, which they have not done here.
14. Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:
“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty
years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not,
when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:
“The Constitution entrusts the Executive with duty to take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed."
15. This case is regarding Barack Hussein Obama whose name was changed to Barry
Soetoro when he was approximately five (5) years old. Soetoro / Obama attended school
in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro.
16. The following Questions must be answered:
A. What is Barry Soetoro’s current legal name? According to his

school record from Indonesia, his legal name is “Barry Soetoro.”
B. Did Barry Soetoro ever legally change his name back to Barack
Hussein Obama? If so, when and where?
C. Did Barry Soetoro ever recoup any U.S. citizenship status, if in

fact he was entitled to such? If so, when, where?
D. If Barry Soetoro never recouped any U.S. Citizenship status by his

21st birthday, that would have required him to send an Affidavit to
the Indonesian Government relinquishing his Indonesian
citizenship, and petitioning the U.S. Department of State, then he is
still to this date, an Indonesian citizen. [Due to the Hague
Convention of 1930, the U.S. would not and will not interfere with
another Country’s individual citizenship status. The U.S. only
accepts dual citizenship status if the other country recognizes and
allows dual citizenship status. Indonesia did not allow dual
citizenship in the 1960’s, and not until 2006.]
E. Did Barry Soetoro attend Occidental College in Los Angeles as a

foreign student? Did he obtain foreign aide? He was called Barry
at Occidental.
F. Why are all of Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama’s

records, including school records in the U.S. sealed?
17. A U.S. Senator is required to be a U.S. citizen for nine (9) years and run for and
operate that particular job function under their legal name.

18. If Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama was still an Indonesian citizen at
the time he secured the U.S. Senate seat, he was paid by the Treasury Department by
false pretenses as he would have been required to fill out forms and sign them stating he
was a “U.S. Citizen” for nine (9) years and his legal name was Barack Hussein Obama.
However, his legal name is not Barack Hussein Obama nor was it at the time he secured
the position of U.S. Senator, as no records can be located legally changing his name from
Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.
19. It is believed Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. A
COLB [Certification of Live Birth] is not proof of citizenship status; Maya Soetoro,
Barry’s half-sister was born in Indonesia and her birth was also registered in Hawaii
where she obtained a COLB. It is believed upon Barry’s return to the U.S. from
Indonesia, his grandparents just simply began using the name “Barack Hussein Obama”
instead of legally reinstating any type of U.S. citizenship status and legally changing his
name back to “Barack Hussein Obama.” And a COLB is not sufficient to prove
Hawaiian heritage for a land lease for purchase for ninety-nine [99] years.
20. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was
not old enough at the time of his birth to register his birth in the U.S. as a “natural born”
only a “naturalized”, however, minors follow their parents citizenship status. When he
was five or six years old, Stanley Ann Dunham married an Indonesian citizen and moved
with young Barack Hussein Obama to Jakarta, Indonesia. In the late 60’s and 70’s,
Indonesia did NOT allow dual citizenship and did not until 2006. [Indonesian
Constitution]. Thus, Stanley Ann Dunham had to relinquish her U.S. Citizenship status
to gain her Indonesian citizenship status. Moreover, young Barack could not attend the

Indonesian public schools without being an Indonesian citizen, it was not allowed and the
Indonesian Government verified the citizenship status of all students attending their
public schools. It is believed young Barry was either adopted or his birth legally
acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, his “step” father, in either case, Barry became an
Indonesian Citizen and his name became “Barry Soetoro,” as evidenced by his school
records that also indicated his Nationality as “Indonesia” and his Religion as “Islum.”
21. The Indonesian Government requires a young person to choose their citizenship
status when they turn the age 18, however, it must be done before the age of 21.
[Indonesian Constitution]. In order to relinquish your Indonesian citizenship status, you
must send a signed Affidavit to the Indonesian Government relinquishing your
Indonesian Citizenship Status. Young Barry, if he did this, which he didn’t, still would
have had to petition the U.S. State Department to recoup any U.S. Citizenship status he
once held. Again, no record has been accessible showing this was ever done. Then, you
still have the name issue. Barry would have had to file papers in Court seeking a legal
name change from his Indonesia adopted/acknowledged name of Barry Soetoro. To date,
no record has been located that this occurred.
22. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama was head of the Harvard Law
Review, is a Harvard Law School Graduate, he taught Constitutional Law, he is very
familiar with the legal requirements of securing a U.S. Senator position. He is also very
familiar with the U.S. laws to recoup any U.S. citizenship status; the changing of his
name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama, and his fraudulent use of this
Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth [COLB], to use the name Barack Hussein Obama as
his legal name, knowing it is not; and to show his citizenship status as U.S. naturalized or

natural born, knowing he never took the legal steps necessary to recoup his U.S.
citizenship status and knowing he is still to this date, an Indonesian citizen.
23. Now the instant case, the Government is attempting to dismiss the Qui Tam action
claiming the Relator, Berg’s claims lack merit. The Relator has clearly established a
genuine question into the legality of “Barack Hussein Obama” serving as U.S. Senator
from Illinois. We are unsure as to his legal name and citizenship status. With this said,
pursuant to Article II, Section 3, the Government has a duty to ensure our laws are
upheld, which also include our Constitutional laws. The request for the Government to
Dismiss the within action is in clear violation of their duties pursuant to Article II,
Section 3 and should “NOT” be allowed.
24. The very important factors in this case are the mere fact that Barry Soetoro a/k/a
Barack Hussein Obama drew funds from the Treasury Department which included U.S.
Senator from Illinois pay; travel expenses; car expenses; medical coverage expenses; etc.,
which totals hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. If the Relator is correct,
which he believes he is, and Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama is not a legal
U.S. Citizen or was not a legal U.S. citizen at the time he ran for and served as U.S.
Senator from Illinois, then he defrauded the Government out of hundreds of thousands, if
not millions of dollars, which the Government is entitled to recoup. The Government
will NOT be prejudiced if the Relator is allowed to litigate the issues.
25. A threshold issue has also been raised giving this Relator a right to Discovery
relating to the Government’s prosecutorial decision. Relator, Berg, has supplied
documents substantiating the name of Barry Soetoro, not Barack Hussein Obama; the
citizenship status of Barry Soetoro – being Indonesian; and the fact, Barry Soetoro a/k/a

Barack Hussein Obama obtained money from the Federal Government claiming his
eligibility to hold the Office and position of U.S. Senator and collecting pay based on his
fraudulent assertions he was a citizen and his legal name was “Barack Hussein Obama.”
26. What has the Government done to ensure Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein
Obama was in fact legally qualified to hold the position of U.S. Senator and entitled to
the money he received, which again was based on his false statements? The answer:
Nothing!
27. Unlike the Hoyte case, the within action has raised legal questions to Barry
Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama’s entitlement to pay from the Government for the
position of U.S. Senator from Illinois, which he clearly was not holding legally. As
stated in Swift, the Government's discretion to dismiss an action…may not be absolute.
28. Relator, Berg, has furnished the Government and this Court with the following
information as to Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama’s legal name, which is
Barry Soetoro and his citizenship status as Indonesian. None of which has been refuted
by the Government.
29. Relator, Berg, has furnished sworn Affidavits showing Barry Soetoro a/k/a
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Mombosa, Kenya, again which the Government has
“not” refuted.
30. Relator, Berg, has presented evidence to the Government and this Court that the
Certification of Live Birth [COLB] presented on the internet by Barry Soetoro a/k/a
Barack Hussein Obama has been deemed a forged and altered document, which has “not”
been refuted by the Government.

31. Relator, Berg, has presented evidence that the birth announcement filed in the
Hawaiian newspapers regarding Barack H. Obama on or about August 13, 1961 could
not be verified, which has “not” been refuted by the Government.
32. Relator, Berg, has presented evidence Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama
never resided in the address on the birth announcement, which has “not” been refuted by
the Government.
33. Relator, Berg, has raised the issue pertaining to Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack
Hussein Obama’s college records wherein Relator is informed, believes and therefore
alleges Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama attended Occidental College in
California and Columbia University as a foreign student, which has “not” been refuted by
the Government.
34. What has the Government investigated?
35. Has the Government located Barry Soetoro a//k/a Barack Hussein Obama’s “vault
(long version)” birth certificate? Hawaii officials have stated they have Barack Hussein
Obama’s “vault” (long version) birth certificate is in the vault of the Department of
Records, although they never stated where it indicates Obama was born.
36. Has the Government located any citizenship records for Barry Soetoro a/k/a
Barack Hussein Obama? The U.S. State Department as well as Barry would have these
records.
37. Has the Government located any legal documents legally changing Barry
Soetoro’s name to Barack Hussein Obama? The Court’s and Barry would have these
records.

38. Relator 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. See Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 254. (D.C. Cir. 2003).
39. 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.
ARGUMENT
I. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS WITH U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

ERIC HOLDER, HIS OFFICE and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST
STATUTES and THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
40. As stated above, this is a Qui Tam action wherein the Relator brought action after
discovering Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama may not be a United States
Citizen and usurped the Office of United States Senator from Illinois, who drew an
annual income, expenses, medical expenses, etc. by falsely claiming he was entitled to
the pay from the U.S. Treasury as he qualified for the position he usurped.
41. United States Attorney General, Eric Holder’s Office. Despite the evidence
produced, U.S. Attorney General Holder’s staff moved to dismiss the Qui Tam action
claiming the Relator’s allegations lacked merit.
42. Again as previously stated, this is a very unique situation. Barry Soetoro a/k/a
Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “President Obama”] is now our acting President of

the United States. President Obama appointed Eric Holder for the position of the United
States Attorney General and Mr. Holder reports directly to President Obama. This
creates a huge Conflict-of-Interest with anyone from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s
Office having any association with the Qui Tam matter against, now, President Obama.
43. 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.
44. There are statutory restrictions on Conflicts-of-Interest during Government
Service. Although 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,
only two [2] 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
• 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.

45. 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 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.
46. As to the restrictions on conflicts of interest during government service, only
section 208 is illuminated by formal regulations, which are 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).”
47. 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 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 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.

48. 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. In December 2008, then President-elect, Obama asked Eric Holder
to serve in his cabinet as the U.S. Attorney General, see EXHIBIT “A”.
49. As this Court is aware, Mr. Holder was appointed by President Obama and now
serves as the United States Attorney General; 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 President Obama. Eric Holder has a direct
financial interest in that he draws a salary based on his position as United States Attorney
General.
50. Furthermore, the conflict 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, see EXHIBIT “B”.
51. This Qui Tam action is against our now President based on the salary and
expenses drawn when he served as the United States Senator from Illinois by false and
fraudulent means. If Berg is allowed to litigate this Case, there is a great potential that it
will effect Obama’s Presidential position.
52. If the U.S. Attorney General, 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. U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
53. For the above aforementioned reasons, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, his
Office and the United States Department of Justice must be conflicted out.
II. RELATOR HAS MET THE BURDEN and THIS COURT HAS THE
INHERENT POWER TO GRANT THE RELATOR’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION BASED ON THE NEW FACTS SUBMITTED
HEREIN:
54. 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)
55. 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 curium) (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).
56. The Supreme Court has stated that Rule 59(e) is generally invoked "only to
support reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a 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).
57. 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);
58. 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).
59. Relator has filed his timely motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 59(e) and has presented new evidence and new laws herein, for this reason,
Reconsideration should be granted.
60. For the above aforementioned reasons, Relator respectfully requests this Court to
grant a Hearing on the matters stated herein and requesting this Court’s intervention if the
Relator and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder are unable to resolve the issues regarding
the Conflict-of-Interest issues and the violations of the Federal Laws and the Code of
Federal Regulations. In addition, the Relator is asking his motion be granted and the case
re-opened.
WHEREFORE, Relator, Philip J. Berg, requests this Honorable Court to grant
Reconsideration and Re-Open the within matter allowing the Relator to litigate the Qui Tam
action. Further, Relator is requesting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, his Office, staff and
the U.S. Department of Justice to remove themselves from the within action as a result of the

Conflict-of-Interests; violations of the Federal Conflict-of-Interest Laws; and violations of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
_________________________
Philip J. Berg, Relator

EXHIBIT “A”

http://www.biography.com/articles/Eric-Holder-391612?part=1
Eric Holder Biography

lawyer, judge, former deputy attorney general
(1951–)
RELATED PEOPLE
• Barack Obama
• Bill (William Jefferson) Clinton
As deputy attorney general, Holder developed and issued the "Holder

Memorandum," which spelled out the guidelines for the criminal prosecution of
corporations. He also developed rules for the regulation of health care, and
assembled a task force that determined how to investigate criminal investigations
of high-ranking federal employees.
At the president's request, Holder created the organization, Lawyers for One
America. The group was designed to bring greater diversity to the law profession,
and increase pro bono work among the nation's lawyers. Holder also briefly
served under President Bush as Acting Attorney General, during the pending
confirmation of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
After serving in this position for four years, Holder joined the private sector to
work at the law firm, Covington and Burling LLC, in 2001. He continues to work at
the firm, representing clients such as the National Football League during its
investigation of quarterback Michael Vick, and the negotiation of an agreement
with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International.
In addition to his normal workload, Holder serves on a number of philanthropic

boards, including the Columbia University board, the Save the Children
Foundation, and Concerned Black Men, a group that seeks to help troubled
youth in D.C. He has also been nationally recognized for his work in the law
profession; he was featured in the 2007 edition of The Best Lawyers in America,
and in 2008 he was named by The National Law Journal as one of "The Most 50
Influential Minority Lawyers in America" as well as by Legal Times for being one
of the "Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Past 30 Years."
In late 2007, Holder joined Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a

senior legal advisor, and later served as one of three members on Obama's vice-
presidential selection committee. In November of 2008, it was reported that the
president-elect asked Holder to serve in cabinet as the U.S. Attorney General. If
he is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, he will become the first African-
American Attorney General in history.
He is married to obstetrician Sharon Malone. The couple has three children:

Maya, Brooke and Eric. They currently reside in Washington, D.C.
© 2008 A&E Television Networks. All rights reserved.

EXHIBIT “B”

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/
Office of the Attorney General
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of

the Attorney General which evolved over the
years into the head of the Department of
Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the
Federal Government. The Attorney General
represents the United States in legal matters
generally and gives advice and opinions to the
ANNUAL REPORTS President and to the heads of the executive
SPEECHES departments of the Government when so
requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or
TESTIMONY importance the Attorney General appears in
ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF person before the Supreme Court. Since the
1870 Act that established the Department of
THE U.S., 1789-PRESENT Justice as an executive department of the
OAG FOIA government of the United States, the Attorney
General has guided the world's largest law
DOJ HOME office and the central agency for enforcement
of federal laws.
Law Offices of:

(610) 825-3134

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, pro se, on his own :

BEHALF and on BEHALF of the :
OF AMERICA, : Case No. 08-cv-1933
:
Relator, :
:
vs. :
:
Defendant. :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, hereby certify that Philip J. Berg, Esquire has served the Relator’s Motion for
Reconsideration by mail through the United States Postal Service, this 19th day of June 2009
upon the following:
Keith V. Morgan Sara McClean

Assistant United States Attorney Department of Justice Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
555 Fourth Street N.W. Civil Division
Washington, D.C. 20530 P.O. Box 261
Ben Franklin Station
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Washington, D.C. 20044
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
s/ Philip J. Berg
________________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Relator

United States District Court For The District of Columbia: Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court For The District of Columbia: Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

United States District Court For The District of Columbia: Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:08-cv-01933-RWR Document 17 Filed 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 28

Law Offices of:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RELATOR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

• This Court never addressed the issue of the Conflict-of-Interest;

Federal Conflict-of-Interest Laws and the Code of Federal Regulations;

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 1

Reconsider the Order issued June 9, 2009; and

Special Prosecutor should this Court feel it necessary.

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 2

Law Offices of:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PHILIP J. BERG, RELATOR’S,

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 3

selection committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest exists.

General Eric Holder.

requested a Hearing pursuant to the FCA statute.

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 4

6. In their Response, The Department of Justice reviewed the Relator’s [Berg’s]

U.S. Senator, when he wasn’t eligible.

7. Then the Government continued by stating, “See generally Memorandum Ruling,

off of the issue in this case.

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 5

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 6

Government an additional sixty [60] days to conduct their investigation.

decline to intervene in the action, thereby limiting expenditure of governmental

process analyses requirement, which they have not done here.

14. Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 7

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:

in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro.

16. The following Questions must be answered:

A. What is Barry Soetoro’s current legal name? According to his

C. Did Barry Soetoro ever recoup any U.S. citizenship status, if in

D. If Barry Soetoro never recouped any U.S. Citizenship status by his

E. Did Barry Soetoro attend Occidental College in Los Angeles as a

F. Why are all of Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama’s

operate that particular job function under their legal name.

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 8

Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 9

[Indonesian Constitution]. In order to relinquish your Indonesian citizenship status, you

must send a signed Affidavit to the Indonesian Government relinquishing your

no record has been located that this occurred.

Review, is a Harvard Law School Graduate, he taught Constitutional Law, he is very

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 10

citizenship status and knowing he is still to this date, an Indonesian citizen.

Section 3 and should “NOT” be allowed.

will NOT be prejudiced if the Relator is allowed to litigate the issues.

relating to the Government’s prosecutorial decision. Relator, Berg, has supplied

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 11

stated in Swift, the Government's discretion to dismiss an action…may not be absolute.

been refuted by the Government.

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 12

not be verified, which has “not” been refuted by the Government.

34. What has the Government investigated?

Z:\Berg\Qui Tam Motion for Reconsideration 06 19 09 13