Posted by
Traci Martin on Friday, October 24, 2008 12:29:56 PM
Many people are still unaware of the pending lawsuit filed by Phillip Berg. A Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania for eight years and Civil Rights attorney.
Mr Berg alleges that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
Obama's motion to dismiss is based upon the idea that any voter does not have proper standing because his injury is not certain as it is not individual to him. Obama's attorneys cite some cases including one where McCain was sued by a voter and it is claimed that the lawsuit was dismissed because of the lack of standing. In their argument, the Obama attorneys argument sounds pretty compelling, especially when they make it sound like the Hollander v. McCain case is right on point, is precedent.
Berg opposes the motion to dismiss and distinguishes the Hollander v. McCain case on a number of bases.
1. The McCain suit was in the primaries where the voter could still vote for another candidate so it was not a restriction on voter's rights. Here in the main election, Obama was the only Democratic candidate, hence Berg is completely disenfranchised as he cannot vote for a viable Democratic candidate (he is life long democrat).
2. The harm claimed "standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance", but in Berg's case is particular to him because he has been denied the constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate.
3. Plaintiff in Hollander didn't claim any personal injury traceable to the McCain's conduct, while Berg claims that he was injured by Obama's activist basically holier than thou attitude, as Plaintiff has been verbally attacked, vilified, etc, all traceable to Obama's fraud (a cause of action)
McCain was "unquestionably an American citizen," something that Obama has not and cannot prove (as alleged).
Watch the video below for a general explaination and more details.
Attorney