Skip to comments.Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot [Berg's lawsuit]
Posted on 10/25/2008 1:48:50 AM PDT by Dajjal
A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
Berg could not be reached for comment last night.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Get out and vote.
That’s all I have to say.
Kind of funny when “We the People” have no standing to demand that a candidate for the President of the United States actually meets the constitutional requirements to do so.
The Constitution is “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
I can understand the judge deciding that Berg did not have standing but “patently untrue”? Hardly. He still hasn’t provided a genuine birth certificate.
(( ping ))
Obviously, the Obama dirt machine has something on Surrick.
The only troubling thing I saw was Bergs use of Wikipedia as a resource.
Obama should still produce the certificate. There is enough reasonable doubt out there to do that. If he is natural born, he has nothing substantive to hide.
Anyway, Berg can now appeal.
From the beginning, this issue was something that only (some) members of the Supreme Court would have the guts to fairly examine. It’s just a shame this scumbag Surrick was able to delay things for so long.
can you appeal a case that was dismissed?
Same as it ever was....
Like I have said before....we are in the Twilight Zone. But the episode doesn’t end.
I believe this is similar to the ruling on the challenge(s) to McCain.
I truly believe that if the truth isn’t exposed prior to the election and he wins, it will simply be swept under the carpet. What we’re dealing with here is a more virulant form of the mafia.
thanks, I had thought you had to find a new court
Like I’ve been saying . . .
There is NO standing in this case. There never was standing in this case. There never will be standing in this case. This case will never, ever go anywhere. This is an utter waste of our time to hitch a ride with a guy show sued GWB under RICO to “get him” for 9-11. *sigh* This lawsuit is frivolous and the facts are specious. SCOTUS would/will rule 9-0 the same way.
No standing, the Democrat judges way of choice for telling you to take a hike, this is our liberal country and we are going to rule it the way we want.
This is still a political issue. Obama’s acting very guilty the way he’s stonewalling in court. A vigilant citizen does not rely on courts alone.
Linking this to the Birth Certificate Link Thread:
“...the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.”
Apparently, this judge would rather wait until the Constitution is completely destroyed before “allegations of harm” are more concrete.
What a maroon.
Evidently, “there is no controlling legal authority” that enforces the Constitution in this nation anymore....if there ever was one.
On what conditions can a judge have this type of ruling? It seems that anything that is going to rock the proverbial boat such as suits against being taxed the ruling is alway that it is frivolous.
There is NO standing in this case. There never was standing in this case. There never will be standing in this case. This case will never, ever go anywhere. This is an utter waste of our time to hitch a ride with a guy show sued GWB under RICO to get him for 9-11. *sigh* This lawsuit is frivolous and the facts are specious. SCOTUS would/will rule 9-0 the same way.
Then what is the point of the “natural born” provision in the consitution if no one has the standing to hold a candidate to account?
By the way, there are now similar suits in several states.
Rules are only for Republicans to follow.
The one undeniable fact in this case is that BHO refuses to produce his birth certificate and is going to incredible lengths to make this issue go away. In any other election with any other candidate, the press would be screaming from the rooftops about this on a daily basis. But they won't go near this because they know it can only lead to something incriminating for BHO. At the very least this should taint his presidency forever with lingering questions about his legitimacy, just as GWB was unjustly tainted with the Florida fiasco, the difference of course being that suspicions of BHO are wholly justified, given the overall murkiness of his entire self-constructed legend.
“There is NO standing in this case. There never was standing in this case. There never will be standing in this case.”
So then tell me, how does a little ole’ nobody of a citizen - like me - compel someone like Obama to verify his constitutional eligibility to run and/or serve as POTUS if not through the courts???
Voters have “no standing” in making sure candidates are constitutionally eligible to run for office???
When you have a clear case of a man (Obama) who has made a point of keeping virtually EVERYTHING about his background a secret - from medical records and college transcripts - to a valid birth certificate, how do you allow him to continue to stonewall the American people with his lies and secrecy? I thought the courts existed to allow for redress of grievances, and THIS is a pretty big one!
Were any of us seeking employment, we may have to do everything from provide official documentation of our eligibility to work in this country, to provide medical records suggesting we are of sound mind and body for the job, and even pee in a bottle, if needed!
Unfortunately, the same standard for employment in the private sector doesn’t seem to apply to public servants (if it did, Barney Frank and company NEVER could have gotten elected!)
The system is therefore rigged not to protect “we the people” but “they the politicians.” Personally, I find it sickening and makes me want to tread on a few flags, too, sometimes.
OK, so we get out and vote, and send this a**hole back to Kenya or wherever the hell else he might have come from. Fine with me. But don’t tell me we shouldn’t be outraged by this judge’s all too transparently political decision.
This judge is an embarassment.
“Generally, a final ruling by a district court in either a civil or a criminal case can be appealed to the United States court of appeals in the federal judicial circuit in which the district court is located, except that some district court rulings involving patents and certain other specialized matters must be appealed instead to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in a very few cases the appeal may be taken directly to the United States Supreme Court.”
So he may be able to try SCOTUS next.
BTW, it galls me no end that should Obama, get elected, our military personnel will have to salute a piece of trash who cares for and respects this country so little, that he can’t even address the flag according to protocol!!!
There’s a very simple reason this parasite got along so well with the likes of other “America Haters” like Ayers and Wright: he obviously hates America, too!
This was never going to go anywhere, it was just a distraction from real issues.
Have any of you actually read this guy Berg’s Amended Complaint? It’s a piece of garbage, its the worst drafting I have ever seen, its 100+ pages of mostly gibberish when 20 pages of good drafting would have been enough. If you can’t even frame the complaint in a way that complies with the court rules then you make it very easy for a judge to throw it out regardless of the merits.
I heard him say on a show that he might appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Fix is in.
You may be right. I just noticed that this thread has been removed from "Breaking News."
I don’t think Berg has anything to appeal.
So no person in this country has any right to demand that a candidate for president prove he or she is eligible to be president?
Or do we just need to find the magic password to use upon the court? Open Sesame?
What is to prevent a person who is 30 years of age from running for president as a democrat if the party and the FEC allows it? Who is in charge of determining eligibility?
As Algore said during his fund-raising scandal, there appears to be “no controlling legal authority.” Is this true in this present case?
He can appeal to the next court up on the list, SCOTUS basically never takes cases directly from the district courts, though it is in theory possible.
He can appeal on ‘issues of law’, which this was, he can appeal the ruling that ordinary citizens don’t have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates for political office.
I know from the other threads on this that prior case law is against him, but I find that worrying, if a citizen can’t challenge the eligibility of a candidate, who can? If we were to run the Governator (RINO that he is), would anyone have standing to challenge him, or could we just go ahead and do it?
Welcome to FReerepublic and nice try.
All the noobtards want to talk about “real” issues.
Yeah, as if Obama not meeting the Constitution requirements is not a “real” issue. How about Palin’s wardrobe?
At very least I wish from the court that they define who does have standing in cases like this. Then we can light a fire under those who are responsible to do their job.
Why do I get the impression that we’re facing “ no controlling legal authority” again?
I’ve read a post of yours on another thread where you say you are an “old judge.” Perhaps you could answer this question for a layman.
Who or what is the controlling legal authority mandated to ensure that the Constitutional requirements for the office of POTUS are satisfied?
Way back when...
It is a State’s issue. It is up to the SOS to vet candidates that appear on the ballot(s).
I think you are right.
And I also think that, assuming the worst case scenario that he wins the general election, and also assuming that there is at least ONE state that goes for McCain, then that state would have a direct line to the Supreme Court to challenge O-mans eligibility.
Unless someone can go to Kenya, bribe the local people to get the real paperwork and document the whole transaction without getting arrested so everyone would know and then get a congressperson to bring it up with the real proof if Obama gets elected, we will only be all labeled consipiratorial racist nuts.
Back on the orginal certifigate thread I posted about Texas and New York having laws that required the SOS to vet the candidates placed on the ballot. It was a mild point noted by a few Freepers and then forgotten by most. Some thought they would do this immediately following the nominations.
Instead the Berg case took the spotlight.
I live in Ohio and Brunner is not the SOS able to do this. Add onto the mess after the election...?
We’re in real trouble no matter if he wins/loses.
For most citizens what is a simple matter...should have been such for Obama. We must never forget it was a simple matter, a simple check mark in his employment box for President.
A simple matter that demonstrated how helpless the American people really are.
"The size of a lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast majority of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad... They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts ... Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent lie, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end."
It seems as though the Obama campaign is paying attention to Herr Hitler.