so i logged on to PACER, did a couple of searches and found... nothing. there doesn't seem to be a lawsuit filed in the past few days in the EDPA against a party with "obama", "democrat", "democratic", "DNC" in it's name, nor by anyone by the name of "berg." here's a screen shot of what happened when i searched for a suit against "obama" (click to make bigger):
it is possible that i guessed the plaintiff and defendant names wrong when i submitted my search (i'm open to suggestions). maybe berg didn't file in his own name, but rather had a different plaintiff. and maybe he didn't sue the democratic party or obama or the obama campaign but instead sued someone else. i have no idea who that is. so right now, it seems that pam atlas is completely full of shit. [but see UPDATES below]shocking, i know.
and that's putting aside the little matter that such a lawsuit, if it exists at all, would have exactly zero chance of succeeding or even slowing down the obama nomination.
and the really odd thing is that while obama's eligibility is solid, mccain's is a little less so. so even if the court were willing to go out on a limb and actually consider disqualifying a presidential candidate, mccain would be the one in danger, not obama. it's a testament to the lunacy of the radical wingnuttians that they're pushing this with such zeal without any awareness that if they actually get a court to look at presidential eligibility, mccain's candidacy is the one that would be threatened. but there's no real danger that a court would do that.
UPDATE: i just remembered that the EDPA hasn't instituted mandatory electronic first filing (like the DNJ has). if the lawsuit was filed by paper, it would have to be manually entered into the electronic system by the court clerk, which could take a day or two. i'll back again later today to see if this thing shows up. my point about the likelihood of success on the merits, however, stands.
UPDATE2: this site contains a press release that contains some details of alleged complaint, the caption is berg v. obama, so my search would have found it if the court clerk had loaded the pdfs into the system. most importantly, it includes a case number (08-cv-4083). i'm now leaning towards the theory that the case was filed by paper yesterday, the electronic docket just hasn't been created yet. (PACER doesn't have '08 cases up to #4083 as of right now).
UPDATE3: the lawsuit still isn't on PACER, it i'm now sure that it's real. a lot of the pleadings can now be found online. the case was assigned to judge barclay surrick, a judge i've had a few times. he held a hearing on berg's motion for a TRO to block obama's nomination, but then denied the motion. the lawsuit technically is still alive, but effectively the decision means that the court doesn't think it can succeed on its merits. barring something unusual happening, the case will probably be thrown out soon enough.
----------------------
1-do thoughts get quotation marks? or do they only get the marks if i say them out loud?
