PDA

View Full Version : Judge rules in favor of Obama in Berg vs. Obama




Penners
10-26-2008, 01:06 AM
Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship
11 hours ago

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0

blocks
10-26-2008, 01:56 AM
Yep...dismissed as regards to standing. As I expected...

Now would be the time for Berg to release that audio tape of Obama's paternal grandmother claiming that she was at the hospital in Kenya when he was born, because now his balloon is gonna start deflating fast considering that that judge was a conservative.

ClayTrainor
10-26-2008, 02:25 AM
Yep...dismissed as regards to standing. As I expected...

Now would be the time for Berg to release that audio tape of Obama's paternal grandmother claiming that she was at the hospital in Kenya when he was born, because now his balloon is gonna start deflating fast considering that that judge was a conservative.

shit...

Pepsi
10-26-2008, 02:28 AM
So the MSM is now reporting on it only after the Judge throw it out?

Knightskye
10-26-2008, 03:47 AM
So the MSM is now reporting on it only after the Judge throw it out?

"Hmm, should we cover Paris, or some internet-fueled conspiracy theory?"

It's the media. :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
10-26-2008, 06:00 AM
Appeal possibilities? Let's get it to the SCOTUS. The publicity could prove very interesting.<IMHO> How about a money bomb to finance it?

Can we get those crack MSM "60 Minutes" and/or "20/20", etc. investigative "journalists" ( so called ) on the case? :rolleyes:

nobody's_hero
10-26-2008, 06:20 AM
EDIT: no application to civil cases

Truth Warrior
10-26-2008, 06:25 AM
Appeals are usually brought forth by the defendant when a verdict of "guilty" has been rendered against him/her.

The right to an appeal rests with the accused, just as the burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecutor.

You can't be tried for the same crime twice, either—that's double jeopardy.

I'd say that unless the prosecution in this case actually had a birth-certificate from Kenya proving that Obama was not a native U.S. citizen, from the start, they pretty much fucked-up this case.

Now, we may never know if Obama is/was qualified, as far as official court verdicts go.

Of course, it would help if the process for applying for candidacy of the U.S. was amended to require oneself to provide evidence of eligibility, instead of going ahead with one's campaign and hoping that no one finds out.

Who makes up all of this CRAP? Oh yeah, LAWYERS! :p :rolleyes:

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

IPSecure
10-26-2008, 06:33 AM
Title should read: "Judge Subverts Constitution"

sub·vert: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subverts) "to overturn or overthrow from the foundation"

Next time anyone asks to see my birth certificate...

Truth Warrior
10-26-2008, 06:38 AM
Title should read: "Judge Subverts Constitution"

sub·vert: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subverts) "to overturn or overthrow from the foundation"

Next time anyone asks to see my birth certificate... So where is the US miltary with their BS bogus oaths " .... to protect from ALL enemies BOTH foreign and DOMESTIC"? :p :rolleyes:

nobody's_hero
10-26-2008, 07:57 AM
Who makes up all of this CRAP? Oh yeah, LAWYERS! :p :rolleyes:

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

TW, respectfully, lawyers did make up this crap. Some of the founders were lawyers. In itself, the system is not corrupt, until it applies to only a select few (nor is it perfect, under any circumstance). There is a reason why 'lady justice,' who holds the scale, has a bandana over her eyes.

But, the things I stated were designed to protect the innocent. I don't like the fact that Obama may very well be unqualified for president, but Attorney Phillip J. Berg is a dumbass, and he fucked-up this case. He cannot accuse people of a violation, take them to court, and expect them to testify against themselves. Not if he expects to survive the American justice system, or what thread of it we have left hanging.

Truth Warrior
10-26-2008, 08:05 AM
TW, respectfully, lawyers did make up this crap. Some of the founders were lawyers. In itself, the system is not corrupt, until it applies to only a select few (nor is it perfect, under any circumstance). There is a reason why 'lady justice,' who holds the scale, has a bandana over her eyes.

But, the things I stated were designed to protect the innocent. I don't like the fact that Obama may very well be unqualified for president, but Attorney Phillip J. Berg is a dumbass, and he fucked-up this case. He cannot accuse people of a violation, take them to court, and expect them to testify against themselves. Not if he expects to survive the American justice system, or what thread of it we have left hanging. I stick by my corrupt system conclusion.;) Some of the founders were crooks and IDIOTS, especially the Federalist ones!<IMHO>


"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." -- H.L. Mencken

lynnf
10-26-2008, 08:35 AM
So where is the US miltary with their BS bogus oaths " .... to protect from ALL enemies BOTH foreign and DOMESTIC"? :p :rolleyes:


the courts haven't had their full chance to do their duty, yet. after the SC rules will be time for that, if needed.


lynn

Truth Warrior
10-26-2008, 08:41 AM
the courts haven't had their full chance to do their duty, yet. after the SC rules will be time for that, if needed.


lynn The SCOTUS is just one MORE of the ENEMIES.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

Alawn
10-26-2008, 10:39 AM
Appeals are usually brought forth by the defendant when a verdict of "guilty" has been rendered against him/her.

The right to an appeal rests with the accused, just as the burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecutor.

You can't be tried for the same crime twice, either—that's double jeopardy.

I'd say that unless the prosecution in this case actually had a birth-certificate from Kenya proving that Obama was not a native U.S. citizen, from the start, they pretty much fucked-up this case.

Now, we may never know if Obama is/was qualified, as far as official court verdicts go.

Of course, it would help if the process for applying for candidacy of the U.S. was amended to require oneself to provide evidence of eligibility during registration, instead of going ahead with one's campaign and hoping that no one finds out.

(The judge's reasoning for throwing out this case basically on the premise that it could have a negative impact on the campaign is hogwash, though. It would have suited to simply say that there was lack of evidence presented by the prosecutor.)

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize this isn't a criminal case right? This is a civil case. One person against another person not the government against a person. There is no prosecution. There is no double jeopardy. There is no guilty or not guilty. The right to appeal does not rest with the accused. Berg can appeal right now if he wants to. And he said he will. In a civil case you can always appeal a dismissal based on standing.

Kludge
10-26-2008, 10:48 AM
Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

Mmmmm...

nobody's_hero
10-26-2008, 01:46 PM
You have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize this isn't a criminal case right? This is a civil case. One person against another person not the government against a person. There is no prosecution. There is no double jeopardy. There is no guilty or not guilty. The right to appeal does not rest with the accused. Berg can appeal right now if he wants to. And he said he will. In a civil case you can always appeal a dismissal based on standing.

Granted, I should retract what I stated about criminal-case rights. This is a civil case.

Thank you.

I still say this is dead in the water, though, unless Berg can provide some evidence rather than expecting Obama to just come out and officially admit that he's not eligible for the presidency.

anaconda
10-26-2008, 02:03 PM
So why did Berg file a civil case?

Do we need a Hillary supporting District Attorney do file a criminal complaint or something?

The simple fact here is that we have a couple or very basic requirements to be President that are mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

So where and how does this get verified? If at all! Seems that verifying natural born citizenship should be a no brainer part of federal election law. But it must not have happened or we wouldn't be having this debate. A bogus non-vault version posted on the internet doesn't seem like it should cut it.

Any lawyers out there? Or, election law specialists?

D.H.
10-26-2008, 06:31 PM
Yes a lawyer posted here #38. Berg sues just to sue. I learned the hard way myself from believing him in the past. People will listen to what they want, but I won't fall for it twice.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=164728&page=4


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=164739

heavenlyboy34
10-26-2008, 07:06 PM
I stick by my corrupt system conclusion.;) Some of the founders were crooks and IDIOTS, especially the Federalist ones!<IMHO>


"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." -- H.L. Mencken

+1776 TW is right on once again! :D

cjhowe
10-26-2008, 07:21 PM
Given a reality where a presidential candidate were not a natural born citizen, on this date (prior to them being elected) your only recourse is in suing the Secretary of State of each state for certifying their eligibility for the ballot when they were in fact ineligible. It's a state's rights issue until the time that an ineligible person is elected to the presidency. On November 5th, it is then the jurisdiction of the federal courts as they would be preventing the inauguration of an ineligible person. Ballot=state's right, inauguration=federal jurisdiction

sidster
10-26-2008, 09:07 PM
^^^ interesting ... here is another article about this:


"Until that time," [Hon. R. Barclay] Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."source (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79086)

nodope0695
10-26-2008, 09:44 PM
Originally Posted by nobody's_hero http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1785917#post1785917)
Appeals are usually brought forth by the defendant when a verdict of "guilty" has been rendered against him/her.

The right to an appeal rests with the accused, just as the burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecutor.

You can't be tried for the same crime twice, either—that's double jeopardy.

I'd say that unless the prosecution in this case actually had a birth-certificate from Kenya proving that Obama was not a native U.S. citizen, from the start, they pretty much fucked-up this case.

Now, we may never know if Obama is/was qualified, as far as official court verdicts go.

Of course, it would help if the process for applying for candidacy of the U.S. was amended to require oneself to provide evidence of eligibility, instead of going ahead with one's campaign and hoping that no one finds out.


You're referring to criminal cases...this is a civil suit. Therefore, I believe Mr. Berg could take his case to a higher court, or to a different venue. It was thrown out for lack of cause, that doesn't mean he ruled in favor of Obama, it just means he said Berg didn't have enough evidence.

Wild Eyes
10-27-2008, 09:38 AM
If there were any chance of this case succeeding, Hillary would have already pounced on Obama's ineligibility during the primaries like a panther on a bunny.

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 09:59 AM
If there were any chance of this case succeeding, Hillary would have already pounced on Obama's ineligibility during the primaries like a panther on a bunny. Unless TPTB script is just being played out. ;) Keep an eye on Hillary AND Bubba. :eek:

acptulsa
10-27-2008, 10:02 AM
It was thrown out for lack of cause, that doesn't mean he ruled in favor of Obama, it just means he said Berg didn't have enough evidence.

Actually it wasn't a lack of evidence. The judge didn't seem to think that Mr. Berg and the rest of us didn't have a stake or the potential to be damaged by this egregious violation of the Constitution.

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 10:23 AM
Actually it wasn't a lack of evidence. The judge didn't seem to think that Mr. Berg and the rest of us didn't have a stake or the potential to be damaged by this egregious violation of the Constitution. C'mon when was the last time that you were damaged by a DEAD document? :D

Wendi
10-27-2008, 10:34 AM
I saw this earlier. It makes me sick. I guess the constitution really isn't important anymore :mad:

I also have an idea of why this is happening, and how it will play out, but I should probably put that in a thread in hot topics ;)

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 10:38 AM
I saw this earlier. It makes me sick. I guess the constitution really isn't important anymore :mad:

I also have an idea of why this is happening, and how it will play out, but I should probably put that in a thread in hot topics ;)

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

orafi
10-27-2008, 12:54 PM
Yep...dismissed as regards to standing. As I expected...

Now would be the time for Berg to release that audio tape of Obama's paternal grandmother claiming that she was at the hospital in Kenya when he was born, because now his balloon is gonna start deflating fast considering that that judge was a conservative.

oh shiet. source?

tonesforjonesbones
10-27-2008, 01:51 PM
I found out Berg is the attorney who was going against the 911 commission. he's a big time truther. tones

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 01:53 PM
I found out Berg is the attorney who was going against the 911 commission. he's a big time truther. tones Does that make Obama born in Hawaii? :confused:

tonesforjonesbones
10-27-2008, 02:05 PM
I dunno truth..but it might sully berg's credibility to the judge. tones

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 02:07 PM
I dunno truth..but it might sully berg's credibility to the judge. tones Usually just any old excuse will do. :p :rolleyes:


Any "system" dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable.