Not wanting to publish the open letter if, in fact, the public record contained proof of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, we decided to take a close look at what had been sent to us last week by those opposed to the publication of the open letter and what others have been reporting since Mr. Berg filed his lawsuit on August 21, 2008.
We have come to the conclusion that the facts presented by Mr. Berg in Berg v. Obama, that are material to the case ARE NOT IN GENUINE DISPUTE and that at his peril, Mr. Obama has a duty to refute them. As a United States Court of Appeals has held, “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” See United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831(1970).
The COLB posted on his website in 2007, and now Mr. Obama’s silent misrepresentation are both intentionally misleading and material.
Harold