Fed Judge Throws Out Berg v. Obama Lawsuit? Or did he?

Originally posted by LibertyOrDeath008
You have to realize that Obama supporters are so brainwashed that they could care less even if he wasn't born in the U.S. They are more loyal to him than they are the constitution. I am not a McCain or Obama supporter so I have no political reasons to try to get to the bottom of this, only constitutional ones. This is a constitutional crisis no matter what party you support (I would hope neither).

And I think that's a little extreme to say that people would still cry conspiracy even if he showed up at our houses with the document in hand. I know I would be convinced either way if I could hold a hard copy but I know that's never going to happen so this Berg lawsuit is the best chance we have to verify if a candidate that is running for the highest office in the country is eligible for that job. This is not a partisan issue!!

If he can produce a hard copy for those shills over at factcheck.org to tout around than why won't he produce one that is being requested by a court of law in this country. Hmm what's he hiding?

Well, if you looked at some of the many comments on websites like ObamaCrimes.com you'd realize why "extreme" probably fits their views.

I haven't seen any evidence from Berg or anyone else that proves that he was born anywhere other than the United States. Apparently the only proof people have is...the case that Berg filed? Which... cites newspaper articles as its sources?

The only proof you have is, "Well he hasn't shown us anything! What is he hiding? He's guilty!"

Sorry but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That's an argument from ignorance.

I mean, what happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

Saturday, October 25, 2008

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Source:
www.americasright.com...

Originally posted by daddyroo45
You know,Berg should just release all his "evidence"to the press.The tape recording of Obama's grandmother.The documentation of school records in Indonesia.Even the "evidence showing Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan.Let the public see the "evidence"and judge it for themselves.

I wonder why Berg hasn't, does HE have something to hide?

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]

reply to post by truthwarrior7

We are NOT under Martial Law currently.

Yes, I understand that. I was saying that I am UNDER THE IMPRESSION that the Constitution (which has been all but eviscerated by the current administration) will be suspended, IF we are under Martial Law. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

I have court ruling that occured in the Middle 1800's at the time of the civil war, and during Msrtial Law under Lincoln. The courts ruled that Martial Law may only occur momentarily, not as a blanket Order. Martial Law may only occur at the location of the courthouse town where the courthose is being burned down. Martial Law mau only occur where no lawful government is possible. This is what the court ruled during lincoln's time. Martial Law can only exist where government is not able to carry out ordinary functions. If the town hall is blown up, then martial law occurs in that town, at the location of the situation, not throughout the whole country, or even the state, or even an entire city.

I am (again) under the impression that a number of executive orders have pretty well superseded that. Can I quote them to you chapter and verse? No. If this law still stands, and I sincerely hope that you are right and it does, then why was Congress threatened with the COUNTRY, not just Congress itself, going under Martial Law if they didn't act quickly to pass the bail-out bill?

Am I making sense here, or just spewing?

[edit on 25-10-2008 by truthwarrior7]

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
reply to post by Tiamanicus

 

I have studied law for 15 and a half years and I disagree. Isn't the internet fun?

Tiamanicus If you would be so gracious to do two things....

Please decode the "legaleeze" the way YOU read it.

And please, OH PLEASE, tell me you can see a way for all this to wind up NOT being chaotic.

No sarcasm, I ask sincerely.

Thanking you in advance...........

I am sorry, I guess I do not understand what you would like these things for? To prove I cannot fake being a law student as well as any other random person on this page? I can, unfortunately, my point is not to prove I can lie well, it was that there was really nothing in that post that showed any indepth knowledge in any way, then it continued with opining and conjecture all somehow given credibility by simply claiming to study law for 15 years. Ok, how about the fact that I disagree, and apparently so does the judge in the case. Really need more confirmation that I am right than that? Are you ready to take the word of a stranger online claiming to STUDY law for 15 years over the judge that actually presided?

reply to post by ThatDGgirl


Thank you for correcting the statement. I understand where your going.

The Congress was threatened because they are stupid puppets and don't know any better. They don't have the rulings I have access to. Nor the time to look them up, nor the advisors to make them aware of them. Nor the keyhones to do anything about it.

There are philosophical legal arguments for both of our sides if were to argue whether or not the scario we are envisioning is leglaly possible or not. However, based on previous rulings that occured DURING martial law in the 1860's, I have reason to believe that Martial Law is truly, in this country, limited to the time and place of the unruliness.

I make a promise that I will bring this ruling to those here at above top secret. For all to read and decide for themselves.

Originally posted by Tiamanicus

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
reply to post by Tiamanicus

 

I have studied law for 15 and a half years and I disagree. Isn't the internet fun?

Tiamanicus If you would be so gracious to do two things....

Please decode the "legaleeze" the way YOU read it.

And please, OH PLEASE, tell me you can see a way for all this to wind up NOT being chaotic.

No sarcasm, I ask sincerely.

Thanking you in advance...........

I am sorry, I guess I do not understand what you would like these things for? To prove I cannot fake being a law student as well as any other random person on this page? I can, unfortunately, my point is not to prove I can lie well, it was that there was really nothing in that post that showed any indepth knowledge in any way, then it continued with opining and conjecture all somehow given credibility by simply claiming to study law for 15 years. Ok, how about the fact that I disagree, and apparently so does the judge in the case. Really need more confirmation that I am right than that? Are you ready to take the word of a stranger online claiming to STUDY law for 15 years over the judge that actually presided?

Where is your evidence that the judge who presided ruled against Berg? I'm waiting for this evidence.

It's worth noting that conservatives, yes conservatives, are the ones that have fought for tighter restrictions on a private citizens right of action.

Here's some good information on recent cases

During the Warren Court era, the Supreme Court freely found implied rights of action. As the Court explained in the 1964 case of J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, "it is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose." Courts operating under this framework frequently found that private rights of action were an appropriate supplement to administrative action, even where Congress had not expressly authorized private rights of action.

More recently, however, the Supreme Court has taken a tougher line on implied rights of action. Judicial conservatives distrust the notion that there even exists any such thing as a "congressional purpose" that goes beyond a statute's text. Conservatives also tend to dislike lawsuits more generally. Thus, as the Court has turned to the right in the last forty years, it has enunciated a stricter standard for finding an implied right of action.

How strict? Consider the 2001 decision in Alexander v. Sandoval. There, the Court accepted that there is a private right of action to enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars certain forms of invidious discrimination by entities that receive federal funding. The Court also accepted (at least for the sake of argument) that the Department of Justice could, by regulation, bar not only intentional discrimination but also practices that have a discriminatory effect on protected groups. Nonetheless, Justice Scalia said for the Court in Sandoval that there was no private right of action to enforce the Justice Department's disparate impact regulation.

Conservative judges have fought and made it clear in recent times that unless Congress puts a specific "private right of action" in a statute, that private citizens, like Berg, can't enforce laws and thus don't have standing.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]

reply to post by Tiamanicus

I am sorry, I guess I do not understand what you would like these things for? To prove I cannot fake being a law student as well as any other random person on this page?

Ummm, no. To help someone like me, who has a TENUOUS grasp on the legal language, understand why 2 such educated people would interpret the same thing so differently. I guess lawyers are like everyone else in this respect. We all see what we want to see. And yes, you are now totally vindicated. I'm sorry if you felt like I was attacking you. It never even occurred to me.

.........it was that there was really nothing in that post that showed any indepth knowledge in any way, then it continued with opining and conjecture all somehow given credibility by simply claiming to study law for 15 years.

Again, that's why I was asking you. I was seeing what I wanted to see and wanted a 2nd opinion.

Ok, how about the fact that I disagree, and apparently so does the judge in the case. Really need more confirmation that I am right than that? Are you ready to take the word of a stranger online claiming to STUDY law for 15 years over the judge that actually presided?

For the third time NO. I was just trying to get a better grasp on the language.

So now that you are vindicated, I guess we're done here. The MSM is not going to report this as they've not been reporting it all along. So now, this particular point is moot.

BUT, the reason I originally posted on this particular thread was simply to point out that THEY continue to orchestrate situations that keeps US squabbling over petty details and NOT seeing the bigger picture of the people pulling the strings.

No harm, no foul?

reply to post by EliteLegends

This is a nation of laws. The law of the land is the Constitution Of The United States of America. If Obama is a natural born citizen, what does he have to be afraid of? Why can he not show his vault certificate that states he was born in Hawaii?
It makes not one whit of difference, as far as the election is concerned. But it will force a constitutional crisis if he his elected and found to be ineligible.
Section 3 of the 20th amendment says that the Vice President elect shall serve if the President is not qualified, until the President is qualified.
Would and ineligible President void the whole election? How could Biden serve, since he was chosen by a candidate who is alledgely illegibe?
It is not a matter of anyone "getting over" anything. It is a matter of law. Until the final judical appeal is decided, the matter remains open.

Berg has updated his website with the news of the dismissal and his appeal.

reply to post by ThatDGgirl
I was under the impression that executive orders do not supercede the Constitution. If the President were to sign such an order, the Congress would not let it stand. (Especially if it was Bush. If it was Obama that might be a different story)




[edit on 25-10-2008 by kettlebellysmith]

Originally posted by truthwarrior7


Where is your evidence that the judge who presided ruled against Berg? I'm waiting for this evidence.

all over this thread for one

Berg has updated his website with the news of the dismissal and his appeal.

Berg's website is another.

reply to post by ThatDGgirl


Calm down. You cannot get mad at me as if I kept saying the same thing to you even after you responded. When you respond, then go back to my old post and respond, then go back, guess what...it will not see you are arguing and adjust itself accordingly. You defend yourself as if I was more and more aggresively attacking your point and disregarding what you say. It is all one post, calm down, take a deep breath and count to ten.

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
I have studied law for 15 years. It appears to me that the lawsuit is going forward. I have seen no evidence that the lawsuit was dismissed other then the reported news story.

Was this independent study, or study in an accredited School of Law?

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


Maybe what I was thinking of is this...

dprogram.net...

In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. Everything done in government is done for a reason, and these two new orders are no exception.

I will keep looking for the other stuff. Sorry, it's not well organized.

reply to post by Tiamanicus


I was not upset.

No harm, no foul?

Here is a pdf of the entire Memorandum and ruling by Judge Surrick.

This is posted on Berg's site.

Read it folks