[rxsid]

"Remember the people saying on these threads that "interpleader" was the brilliant strategy that would work this time?"

During his interview on the Andrea Shea King show Friday 1/30 (I believe) he sounded as if he was putting more 'faith' in the case that's currently sealed because that case (the sealed case) put's the burden of proof fully on the defendant(s) whereas the interpleader case he said only partly put the burden on the defendants...at least, that's what Berg stated.

It's been theorized that this sealed case is the type of criminal case known as a "Qui Tam"

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yes, it is a qui tam case-- one in which he is alleging that Obama submitted "false claims" to the Government. Qui tam cases do not require individualized standing, and, by statute, must be sealed for 60 days before they proceed (because the Justice Department has the right during the first 60 days to take the case over). But he will still have the burden of proof (I know what he is saying, but it just isn't so-- defendants in qui tam cases do not have the burden of proof). Plus, I think he will still have problems with justiciability (i.e., the courts will say that the President's eligibility is a "political question" for the elected branches, not the courts).