To: 21stCenturyFreeThinker
Ping! Open the link and enjoy...has he made his case for “standing”?
33 posted on
09/30/2008 6:24:32 AM PDT by
VigilantAmerican
(We will not waver, we will not tire; we will not falter, we will not fail)
To: Canedawg; SlapHappyPappy; VigilantAmerican; Myrddin
Canedawg said That can not be his opposition to the motion- that is a proposed order on the motion that he purportedly submitted to be signed. Where is his opposition?
The proposed order is page 1 of the doc; the rest is his opposition brief.
SlapHappyPappy said Just tell me he didnt cite Wikipedia again in the response.
Uh .. well. Yes, he did. The funny thing is that both pages have changed now
VigilantAmerican said But it wouldnt have settled anything ...
I agree. Bergs complaint has so many theories in it that even if Obama did attach a verifiable, certified COLB, they would still say that hes not eligible, and probably add a few more theories.
With respect to felonius perjury on his application to the Illinois bar that claim has been debunked by Americas Right at http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/berg-v-obama-update-wednesday-august-27.html.
Myrddin said: The lawsuit would be history in minutes. It's not. Obama sent his high powered lawyers. Something stinks.
That just doesnt wash because McCain has done the same thing twice. In Hollander v. McCain (brought by a voter) and in Robinson v. Secy of State et al (including McCain) (brought by a third party on behalf of its candidate, Alan Keyes). In both cases, McCain filed a similar motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of standing. In both cases, the court agreed and dismissed the case.
--------------
One interesting thing I noted about Bergs response is that his grounds for standing all refer to standing to sue federal agencies (or dont refer to standing at all).
He cites (a) 5 USC § 702, (b) FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), (c) 5 U.S.C. §552(B), and (d) 28 U.S.C. §1343. All of this law relates to standing to sue a federal agency. And here, the FEC hasnt even answered yet (or filed a motion to dismiss). Under the provisions, I'm not sure Berg has yet met the standards even to have standing to sue the FEC, but it is -- "odd" -- that he cites all this law to argue that he has standing to sue the DNC and Obama under, e.g., the Freedom of Information Act or the Federal Administrative Procedures Act.
He also cites 8 U.S.C. §1481(b), which does not relate to a federal agency, but also does not provide standing to sue. Its a provision about who bears the burden of proof in an action regarding loss of citizenship.
He also cites, generally, federal question jurisdiction. I think this may be his most viable claim. Although I dont think he states it very artfully, it seems that he is arguing for an expansion of the law given that, he argues, no statute expressly grants standing to sue a candidate but should: Moreover, there are absolutely no statutes or laws which dictates how a person, such as Plaintiff, are to demand proof of our Presidential candidates eligibility in order for Plaintiff to be able to form a proper decision on who to cast his vote for. Each entity contacted, whether Governmental or State has refused such duties, including the DNC and FEC.
I think that this last argument is his best hope if the judge doesnt get really aggravated at all the totally inapplicable chaff hes thrown up before he gets to this argument in his brief.
(Of course, he still has to get past the two McCain cases, Hollander and Robinson - and I don't think he effectively did that in his response.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson