Posted by
Traci Martin on Friday, October 24, 2008 12:37:08 PM
Berg essentially turns it around and says the the Hollander case helps him not hurts him. It should be noted that Berg amended his complaint and creatively added some cause of action in personal injury and fraud.
Berg then moves on to 5 USC 702 (U.S.Codes) saying that he tried to obtain the documents from the DNC and FEC, he and others asked them to investigate and were ignored. He claims under this section that he can thus add the U.S. or federal authority as a party because they failed to take any action or investigate Obama, let alone the $400 million he has obtained through campaign contributions. He then bootstraps that to 2 USC 437(c ) and (d) essentially indicating that since those statutes provide the authority for the DNC and FEC to require Obama to provide the documents and answer the questions, and since they have not, they have neglected their duties and can be civilly sued under the 702 section. If Obama was not legally able to prove his status under 437(g), then he has perpetrated a fraud on the American people and the government, by collecting the said $400 million. He then says "When Congress confers standing on litigants, the generalized grievance constriction does not apply. Congress confers standing on any individual who has been aggrieved by the denial of information required to be furnished pursuant to Statute. It matters not that most people are or will be entitled and suffer a "generalized grievance", the statutory entitlement is sufficient. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)."
The Akins case specifically indicates that the voters have standing to seek and enforcement action if the FEC doesn't do their job after being asked to do so. It goes on to discuss that if the harm is traceable to the refusal to act by the FEC and the courts can correct the "redress", the standing is conferred. That case also indicates that even the harm may be widely shared, it is still "concrete."
Continued in part 3