It is THE SPORK!!! Yes... the sign of dubious utility.
Something has been floating about the blogs very recently:
Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President
Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President
For Immediate Release: - 10/21/08 - Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. [...]
In my research for the expected debunking sites
I came across an interesting website called "What's Your Evidence
" which is directed at debunking the claims and allegations of Philip J. Berg, Esq..
However, I do take exception on technical grounds on their debunking. While Mr. Berg has not provided any evidence, this should not allow WYE to automatically label the allegations as "FALSE". For a long time, we believed the coelacanth fish was extinct... until we found one. Just like in some murder cases, the lack of a body does not mean a crime has not been committed. I think that a better label would be "UNSUBSTANTIATED". It also appears that their sole tool of research has been Google searches. This is not an appropriate tool for these allegations. Multiple non-internet tools are required
for to refute
these type allegations. I am pretty sure that most public records are NOT indexed on Google, especially those of foreign countries. WYE relies entirely on the research of others.
That being said, it is my understanding that, legally, it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Berg's case seems VERY weak on that point. Can you imagine what our court system would look like if all one had to do was make a wild allegation and the defendant was REQUIRED to produce evidence to the contrary? I am surprised the judge didn't toss this out. That is why I reserve one eyebrow to be raised in suspicion; it wasn't immediately dismissed. Then again, IANAL
I fully expect that the mainstream media will ignore this as it appears, on the outset, to be another baseless nuisance lawsuit.NOTE: updated at 2:55PM