Posted on 08/26/2008 10:22:55 PM PDT by Kevmo
TRO Denied; Obama Can Still Run -- For Now
The Obama campaign is probably breathing a sigh of relief now that the motion for temporary restraining order sought by Philip J. Berg, Esquire, has been denied. Berg, who says he is a Democrat (and presumably a Clinton supporter), filed a lawsuit last Thursday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Obama, the DNC and the FEC, claiming that Obama can't be president because he isn't a "natural born Citizen," as required by Article II, Section I of the Constitution. Berg also immediately sought a TRO to "put a stop to Defendant Obama's fraudulent campaign scheme."
Berg is a Pennsylvania attorney who is acting pro se. While the skepticism that usually attaches to pro se plaintiffs may not be justified, generally speaking -- except that it is -- Berg did not help his credibility by referring to himself under "Parties" as "Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter "Plaintiff"] . . . ."
First, it is usually possible to figure out who the plaintiff is in a lawsuit without that kind of bracketed help, especially when he has called himself that twice already in the same sentence. Second, Plaintiff Plaintiff Berg, you're suing a presidential candidate on the eve of the nominating convention and you couldn't take a second to proofread the sentence with your own name in it? Please.
Obama -- or, as Berg calls him, "Defendant Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barack Dunham, a/k/a Barry Dunham [hereinafter 'Obama']," is running for president. But he can't be president, according to Berg, who charges that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" because, "just to name one of the problems," he "lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen" and the family moved there. Just to name two of the problems with that argument, (1) it concedes that Obama had U.S. citizenship to lose, and (2) you don't lose citizenship just because your mom marries a non-citizen, even if you move. Berg did not cite any support for this point, though he did set it forth in bold underlining, which is almost as good.
For the most part, Berg just raises "questions" about Obama's birthplace (Berg claims it was Kenya) and citizenship, and then charges that Obama "has refused to prove" he is qualified to run. The complaint concedes that Obama has posted a birth certificate on his website, but, Berg says, "as posted all over the internet," that is a forgery. And as we should all know by now, anything posted all over the internet must be true.
The complaint includes three counts: (1) violation of Article II, Section I of the Constitution; (2) "dual citizenship," and (3) fraud. Berg concludes, "For the above aforementioned reasons, Obama needs to immediately step down and withdrawal his candidacy for Presidency."
What is especially amusing about all this is that, as Berg may or may not know, the other guy in the race has the same problem, if it is a problem. John McCain was not born in the U.S. -- he was born in the Canal Zone. There is no question that he is a U.S. citizen. But Article II doesn't say "citizen" -- it says "natural born Citizen." And, it seems, nobody really knows for sure what that means. Barry Goldwater had the same problem (he was born in the Arizona Territory), as did Mitt Romney's dad, George, who was born in Mexico. They weren't disqualified from running, despite the legal uncertainty about the term. George Romney's opponent apparently did insist on calling him "Jorge," but that's the worst that has happened so far.
Obama's "campaign scheme" can go forward, at least for now, because the motion was denied after a hearing on Friday. Sadly, a transcript of that hearing does not yet seem to be available, but the pleadings (downloaded from the court via PACER) are posted below.
Link: iReport.com (Flash required) Link: Complaint in Berg v. Obama (PDF) Link: Motion for TRO in Berg v. Obama (PDF) Link: Order Denying TRO in Berg v. Obama (PDF)
August 25, 2008 in Constitutional Law, Elections & Voting, Fool for a Client | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
Will you please stop dumping an entire blog in here?
It’ a lot easier to read an extract, or a summary of it.
***When you’re writing your book, and you’re looking for this material & find that it has disappeared down a deep, dark black hole, you’ll be grateful. At that time, you can buy me a beer.
Have you considered a career in writing fiction? This has the makings of a great political thriller.
Of course, there's absolutely no actual evidence for any of this, but don't let that stop you.
Kevmo: But the fact the lawsuit doesn’t get thrown out as trivial is based on the facts behind the case, clymer.
Kabar: You can cling to whatever false hope you have, but this lawsuit isn’t going anywhere, dummy.
***Now we see your story changing. First you say there are no facts, now we see that you are changing direction and saying that we’re clinging to false hope based upon a future event that the lawsuit isn’t going anywhere, as if you had a looking glass into the future. The first argument — that there were no facts — was knocked down, then your followup argument — that the lawsuit isn’t going anywhere — is a classical fallacy based upon you supposedly knowing the future. So, you attack from one end and then the other, like a real troll. Like I said, you have nothing of substance to offer.
Kevmo: You find yourself on the side that’s telling the SBVFT of this election cycle not to proceed, RINO.
Kabar: No comparison.
***The comparison is direct, using your own words: “The SBVFT saved Bush who would have lost without them. “ This CoLB issue has the potential to do exactly the same for McCain against Obama.
The SBVFT had firsthand information that was indisputable and irrefutable. No speculation needed.
***And Kerry had the firsthand info in his hands that could have refuted it, but chose instead to show it to some in-the-tank media rather than release it. Same thing here. The indisputable info is the actual document, in both cases those documents are unreleased.
If you believe that his named mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, is his real mother, then it is virtually certain that Obama obtained his citizenship thru his American mother than thru the naturalization process, even if he were born abroad.
***If he were born abroad, he is a naturalized citizen rather than a natural born citizen, as required by the constitution to be eligible for the presidency. This entire discussion is based upon the evidence and contention that Obama was born abroad. This is about the 3rd time I’ve reminded you about that, and I’m certain others have. But as an Obama-supporting troll, you won’t be listening to that.
Kevmo: The birth announcement was by the proud gramma who wanted to make sure he gets citizenship. Lots of illegal aliens do all kinds of things to get citizenship for their kids, like travelling a thousand miles when they’re 9 months pregnant so they can drop an anchor baby.
Kabar: You are mixing apples and oranges. Obama wouldn’t be an “anchor baby” if his mother was a US citizen.
***But Obama is a naturalized citizen if he were born abroad, and it’s a lot easier to set things up so that it appears he was born here than to go through all the paperwork of naturalization. His citizenship was conferred upon him illegally, by defrauding the system. That makes him a naturalized citizen, not a natural born one.
And if Obama was a true “anchor baby,” born on US soil of non-citizen parents, then he is a natural born citizen thru birthright citizenship.
***Straw argument. My claim isn’t that he is an anchor baby, but that his parents/elders acted in a similar manner that others do who are trying to obtain easy citizenship for their children.
So grandma knew 47 years ago that Obama would be running for President and set this all up?
***See my previous post for the knockdown of that straw argument. And why is it that you are resorting to exaggerated argumentation and straw arguments and classical fallacies? Is it because you don’t know how to argue or is it because you cannot argue the facts?
Saying something doesn’t make it so. You are just angry because the facts don’t support your theory.
***Your first sentence nullifies your second sentence. Nicely done. In addition you’re telling me what I think, which is (as usual) wrong.
The solution: ignore the facts and attack the messenger.
***You think that’s why I’m angry? No, I’m angry that RINOs have taken over this forum and trolls like you can operate with impunity. You would have been laughed out of the FR court a decade ago, but FR is no longer the bastion of conservatism it once was; it has become the de facto hangout for namby-pamby republicans.
Until some objective authority can guarantee to me that the JPEG of the birth announcement is actually in some yellowed, archived Hawaiian newspaper, I hold out the suspicion that it was created on WORD a few weeks ago.
I hold out the suspicion that it was created on WORD a few weeks ago
***I think it’s Calpernia that sometimes posts a picture of what appears to be some kind of MSWord artifact on the announcement, but I haven’t had time to look into it.
Of course, there’s absolutely no actual evidence for any of this, but don’t let that stop you.
***As was stated before to the other troll operating on this thread, if there were “absolutely no actual evidence for any of this” then Berg vs. Obama would have been dismissed as trivial by now. But it hasn’t. Because there are enough facts within that case to warrant looking into it. But don’t let that stop you and your troll buddies.
Thanks, Kevmo. When I first made that observation on June 13, I never thought that it would become the linchpin of my analyses. If you type, "image analysis" AND "non-classical computer forensics” into Google, you will get those same five listings I mentioned, of which two of the five are to Dr. K's blog.
I’ve tried to reproduce those requisite ‘Scanner artifacts,” but gave up trying after image number 117.
Here’s what they’re saying over at the Anti-PUMA site.
http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2008/08/in-the-doldrums.html
In the doldrums - Cult of the COLB update,
While the convention goes on and PUMA licks their wounds after the 1-2 punch the Clintons gave them, the Cult of the COLB has been quiet for the most part. Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit is really the only thing going on at this time. While “TexasDarlin’s” blog isn’t as dark as she claimed, nothing really new there either.
23 August - the ultra right-wing “news” site “World Net Daily” has an article on the Berg lawsuit. They’re not kind.
“Philip J. Berg, a former member of Pennsylvania’s Democratic State Committee and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, filed the lawsuit this week in U.S District Court, asking the court to declare Obama ineligible for the presidency and to prevent him from running for the position.
However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg’s lawsuit relies on discredited claims.”
You know you don’t have a case when even World Net Daily says the claims are “discredited”. Especially when WND is claiming that the COLB is legit:
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
Wonder when they’ll claim WND is “Pro-Obama”??
23 August - Philip J. Berg posts more info about his lawsuit. Including a “forensic analysis” of Sen. Obama’s COLB.
“Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Why? Why a COLB (certificate of live birth) forgery? That is the question.
My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst’s unwavering commitment to the truth despite the threats and harassment, the slashed tires and the dead animal on his porch.
The analyst is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association - the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then.”
Hmmm.......Doesn’t that last bit sound somewhat familiar??? Especially when it goes on to mention a supposed “dead mutilated rabbit”. The link to “Atlas Shrugs” only confirms the fact - Berg is actually using the long-since discredited “TechDude” as his “forensic analyst” !!!
Pardon me, I have to pick myself off the floor from laughing hysterically.
24 August - “Israel Insider” continues their tradition of “no Obama smear too low” and posts an article claiming that FactCheck’s examination of the COLB was faked as well. The neocons at FreeRepublic eat it up.
27 August - The right-wing blog “America’s Right” seems to be the best place for Berg lawsuit updates. Though it’s interesting to note that unlike “TexasDarlin’s” uncritical acceptance of anything the Cult of the COLB threw up, Jeff Schreiber seems willing to be a bit more skeptical. He researched the perjury claim and decided it was “Personally, I believe the perjury claim to be poorly founded, hastily researched, and off-base”. Also:
“According to the District Court’s Web site, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has accepted service on behalf of the Federal Election Commission and, curiously enough, the Democratic National Committee as well.”
28 August - The Washington Times does an article about the lawsuit.
“Mr. Berg said he was contacted about filing the lawsuit by a member or associate of the group PUMA, which was formed to support Mrs. Clinton shortly after she withdrew from the race. Its mission includes denouncing the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama’s nomination.
“I really do not believe he is a natural-born citizen,” said Mr. Berg, adding that he is not connected with Mrs. Clinton or her campaign.”
I really do not believe Mr. Berg’s case has a snowball’s chance in hell. Even possible allies are questioning a lot of it. I suspect Mr. Berg is doing it for the media exposure.
The funny thing about his case? It looks like he did a copy, cut and paste on the claims of “Judah Benjamin”, “TexasDarlin”, “TechDude”, and “Polarik”. He even cited Wikipedia entries.
Which means that the defense can subpoena those people to force them to prove their claims. Or even the person that “TechDude” was impersonating. The minute that happens, the game is over - because even if they did appear, (unlikely, since Berg may not even have their real names), they would then have to prove to the court’s satisfaction that they:
1) Are who they claim to be
2) Have the skills, training, and certification claimed as well.
In short, it’s strongly doubtful they could prove a single thing. Already the perjury claim has been chipped away by someone who is AGAINST Obama. Any more of the claims are disproven, (and they would be frightfully easy to disprove), and the entire case falls apart.
The burden of proof is on Mr. Berg, and he’s built a house of cards.
Posted by Patrick McKinnion at 01:34 PM | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3070914/32883356
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In the doldrums - Cult of the COLB update,:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
CRAP! For conservatives, when WND calls you crazy, you know you’ve gone off the deep end!!!
Posted by: Ames | August 29, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Ames - “Laugh” I know. World Nut Daily pretty much is NeoCon wingnut central. So for them to say the Cult of the COLB is “discredited” pretty much means that nobody is buying into it.
And I suspect it also means that the GOP isn’t going to bring it up either, despite the wishes of the Cult of the COLB.
That being said, I wish they would subpoena the “experts” in this case.....no more hiding behind screen names and non-provable claims.
Posted by: Patrick McKinnion | August 29, 2008 at 02:20 PM
I’d love to see TexasDarlin in court. Hilarity would ensue.
By the way, citing to Wikipedia is a HUGE taboo for the obvious reasons, and a sure mark of the intellectually inept. My law journal has repeatedly yelled at authors for doing that; a court, I imagine, will be much less generous.
Posted by: Ames | August 29, 2008 at 03:34 PM
I’ve tried to reproduce those requisite ‘Scanner artifacts,” but gave up trying after image number 117.
***Here’s what I would do if I were in your shoes. I’d take a few representative samples, say 5 of them. I’d post a thread on Free Republic that says something like, “Scanner Artifacts and the Obama Birth Certificate Debacle” and post my findings. I’d keep it simple. In particular, one exercise I would do is scan in a document, then scan it in again and compare the 2 almost-identical documents for the kind of pixel artifacts that Techdude was saying that he found.
You don't understand how civil procedure works. Berg has filed a suit and requested a TRO, but the other party in the suit has not yet had a chance to respond. A judge can't dismiss a case until the other parties have had a chance to appear in court. Our legal system is party-diven. That means that until one of the parties makes a motion to dismiss a case, it would be legally improper for a judge to do so.
Once Obama's $500/hour lawyers show up in court and file their motion to dismiss, that's when the judge will toss this case out.
Once Obama’s $500/hour lawyers show up in court and file their motion to dismiss, that’s when the judge will toss this case out.
***If Obama can afford $500/hour lawyers, what’s the holdup? Maybe he needs that $50 to pay the fee for obtaining his birth certificate? I suppose this is actually good news for republicans — it means Obama is simply dumber than a box of rocks to have let this thing go as far as it has.
You know why? Because I called his bluff when he said that he did Principle Components Analysis (PCA) on the Obama image, by asking him to tell me what were the specific results that his PCA produced -- results of which he knew nothing about. Little did he know that I'm also a Statistician with a Masters in Experimental Psychology and a Doctorate in Instructional Media. I don't like to flaunt it, y'know.
Yes, indeed, that was one Hell of a core dump. BTW, did I also mention that Krawetz's degrees are in computer security, with nothing in his credentials having anything to do with digital image analysis. The closest that he would ever come to doing that would likely be a chapter in a book, or lecture on, steganography -- the science of embedding hidden messages inside digital images.
When someone, anyone, begins a critique of another researcher with an ad hominem argument, like Krawetz did with mine when he dismissed it by saying that "Polarik doesn't even know the very basics of image graphics", it's a sure sign that he's threatened by it.
And, when early critics like AJStrata and friends also tried to dismiss my pixel analysis with a "Polarik doesn't know about anti-aliasing," or "scanner/printer artifacts," they showed me how little they know, vis-a-vis what I know.
So, here I am, the last Obama COLB buster still standing, who began my image analysis almost three months ago, with those inexplicable pixel anomalies that still rule out any other explanation than the one I gave.
The moral of this story is that even the tiniest thing that one can find in an image is more than enough to trip up a forger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.