Judge rules in favor of Obama in Berg vs. Obama

[Penners]

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]

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]

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]

So the MSM is now reporting on it only after the Judge throw it out?

 

[Knightskye]

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.

 

[Truth Warrior]

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?

 

[nobody's_hero]

EDIT: no application to civil cases

 

[Truth Warrior]

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!

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

 

[IPSecure]

Title should read: "Judge Subverts Constitution"

sub·vert: "to overturn or overthrow from the foundation"

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

 

[Truth Warrior]

Title should read: "Judge Subverts Constitution"

sub·vert: "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"?

 

[nobody's_hero]

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

"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]

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]

all in good time, my precious... all in good time.

So where is the US miltary with their BS bogus oaths " .... to protect from ALL enemies BOTH foreign and DOMESTIC"?

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]

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>

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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!