Replies

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 didn’t 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 wouldn’t have settled anything ...”

I agree. Berg’s complaint has so many theories in it that even if Obama did attach a verifiable, certified COLB, they would still say that he’s 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 America’s 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 doesn’t 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 Berg’s response is that his grounds for “standing” all refer to standing to sue federal agencies (or – don’t 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 hasn’t 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. It’s 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 don’t 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 doesn’t get really aggravated at all the totally inapplicable “chaff” he’s 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.)

Why hasn’t NObama cleared this up yet? He needs to suspend his campaign until this is finally all cleared-up. If he wasn’t born here, he’ll need to leave the Senate and of course the Presidential Race. What is going on here?????

Thanks for what appears to be an excellent reply.

I’m exhausted after working all night, and I’m headed to bed now, but will scrutinize your statements later on...especially I support one of your last points—how the hell is anyone who is not a competing or defeated candidate supposed to challenge a candidate’s eligibility (be afforded standing) when the agencies normally responsible for certifying eligibility are derelict at the switch, and reluctant or refusing to even get involved?

McCain v. Hollander seemed to me to be saying, “leave us judiciary out of these questions, we want you voters to just deal with it all at the ballot box, because it’s not our bailiwick really anyway, and even if someone is ineligible you voters can just write-in someone who is eligible, etc...it’s all maddening...zzzzzzzzz

Well, I went to the link and while I can see how you’d certainly think the Illinois bar application perjury charge is somewhat shaky, I wouldn’t completely conclude that it’s been debunked.