Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Banned from Berg's Blog...I Think

A commenter below asked if I was the same 'Loren' who posted on Phil Berg's obamacrimes.us website a few weeks back. Indeed I am. Why did I stop posting there? Simple: because, without explanation, they stopped me.

On December 17, I made my last post on the site. It's still there, and it's rather simple:

The Tribe/Olson Memo
written by Loren, December 17, 2008
McCain redux
written by Jeff Williams, December 17, 2008
Here's an interesting article on the debate over McCain's eligibility: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...ccain.html

Laurence Tribe's memo has apparently never been released, which is too bad -- it would interesting to know what his actual analysis was and what weight they gave which factors.

Well, I found it, though it took a bit of effort.

Nothing special or inflammatory. The next day, December 18, I attempted to post a response to another post (one poster, 'Jimmy the C', even asked for me to post: "I wish Allison or Loren would check in. I need to freshen up my debate skills."), and I found that my account no longer worked. No one on the board reported that I had been banned, and I didn't receive an email or other notice saying I'd been banned, and frankly, I hadn't done anything to get banned. So I was a bit mystified.

A day or two later, I attempted to create a new account (the unsubtle 'LorenC'), and it worked. I didn't proceed to post anything, though, and by the time I attempted to post, I found that that account had been disabled too. I finally wrote the webmaster an email asking about my status, and I didn't hear back.

So presumably, I've been banned from Phil Berg's site. I don't know why. If I had to guess, I'd fathom that someone was unhappy with my series of posts just prior to the Tribe/Olson one, where I went through Berg's August Complaint and pointed out what evidence had and hadn't been publicly produced (I'll be reproducing those posts here soon).

But one big nagging aspect of this is that in the weeks since, as far as I can tell, it's never been announced that I was banned. When a frequent poster named 'greatkim' was banned, the board was informed of it. When a frequent poster named 'allison' was banned, it was not only announced, but the board was provided with an explanation of WHY she was banned. As far as I can tell, the board has never been informed why I was banned, or even informed that I was banned at all. I was, for lack of a better term, simply 'disappered,' and posters were permitted to assume that I'd voluntarily quit posting.

So, barring further evidence, it certainly seems that someone over at obamacrimes.us not only wanted to keep me from posting there anymore, but they didn't want anybody to know that they'd silenced me. And hey, it's their board...they're not obligated to allow me to post, and if they were troubled by my posts pointing out the gaping holes in Berg's claims, then they're certainly free to keep me from exposing him on their own site.

Fortunately, they can't silence me everywhere, so rather than make me shut up, they inspired me to create this blog, and hopefully reach even more people. In a roundabout way, perhaps I should thank them.

And if anyone who happens to read this also happens to still post over at Berg's site, I wouldn't complain if you shared what's become of me.


  1. Wow Loren, I wonder what would happen if I posted over there ;) No doubt I wouldn't last long.

    Don't let them get to you...when you expose liars, that kind of stuff comes with the territory.


  2. I too was banned, and then indeed a "story" was spread all over the blog that I was "harassing" other bloggers. This claim was pure rubbish, BTW, but thenh again so if just about everthing they say over there...

  3. John
    If you do get a chance to post over at the Berg nuthouse, feel free to let them know I take issue with the defamatory accusations that were published about me. I harassed no one, I emailed Linda and Lisa to ask why I was getting a "blocked" message and expressed that I would be very disappointed and would have to question the integrity of those running the site were they to simply ban someone for asking questions and sharing information (with sources). Linda, of course, apparently construed that section of my email as harassment. She seems to construe any statement not in agreement with her views as abusive or harassing. The woman seems to be unhinged in some manner.

    Loren, BTW, great blog!!

  4. I am guessing I was banned because supposedly I was "discouraging people"-- with the TRUTH about the current law/legal processes and by providing links to sources, mind you.

    Oh, and I did make a comment about Berg's interpleader case inquiring if this may be the one to prompt a Rule 11 motion (meaning FRCP Rule 11, pertaining to sanctions for lawyers, which, I think Berg has earned yet again).

  5. Go Allison! I watched your posts over there. All logic, no bias.

    Banned! Go girl.

  6. Thanks sc, it was clearly the logic that got me banned!! They don't do too well with logic over there, it apparently "confuses people" (as Lisa pointed out to me). I can't wait to see their reaction when SCOTUS denies the petiton on Monday. ROTFL. I am sure Linda will have some new excuse and a new "smoking gun date" to dangle as a carrot so they can keep separating the fools from their money.

  7. Interestingly enough, she has been at this from the get-go. She is a bonafide original member of the PUMA group - the sad spinoff before PUMApac became 'legitimate'.

    You know, the group that rented out an abandoned liquor store in Denver during the Dem convention in Denver....sad, sad people.

    I have a weird feeling that they're all the same person - Linda Starr, Texas Darlin, Citizen Wells, Judah Benjamin, Dr. Kate, etc...

  8. Oh, Linda is a special kinda bat-sh*t crazy if you ask me. And yes, I am all too familiar with PUMA and their wacky merry band of moron antics both pre and post Denver. Oh, and I believe they rented a former bail-bond shop in Denver, not a liquor store. Liquor store mighta explained a lot, though.

  9. Hey allison! Thanks for dropping in. And I'm glad to hear that the defamatory stuff they said about you wasn't true. I guess you'd posted so much, and had maintained such a nonpartisan tone, that they knew you'd be missed and that they didn't have a legitimate reason for banning you. Hence the manufactured reason.

    I also can't wait for their reaction. Some folks aren't just crossing their fingers in the hopes of Supreme Court action, they're actively predicting that it will happen. That's just setting yourself up for disappointment.

    And sc_dem, I saw you got yourself banned from Ed Hale's site. They devoted a whole thread just to announcing your banning and the deletion of your posts.

  10. Allison - They rented out a former bail-bond shop.

    They cleaned out a liquor store. :-)

    sc_dem - Yeah, I've been seeing Linda Starr for a while now. She was busy in the early PUMA blogs before she became Berg's cheerleader. Her own blog hasn't seen an update in months though

  11. The supreme irony about all of this is that shortly after the website was opened up for commenting (it hadn't allowed comments previously), Berg himself wrote a post welcoming peoples' comments, saying it was a right of free speech protected by the First Amendment.


  12. Koyaan
    Well, they tossed that idea out the window pretty fast, eh?