Posted on 10/25/2008 8:18:39 PM PDT by RatsDawg
Joe Plugs Head?
The decision came out on a Saturday, with the Judge's secretary probably not at work. She may have finished it at home and faxed it from her home to the Judge.
Obama worked at this firm and Andy Martin reported on it.
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/09/andy-martin-exposes-barack-obamas-lies.html
Excerpt:
Obama's law degree thus appears to have been financed through the encouragement of persons who had been violent revolutionaries and remain unrepentant to this day, the same unconventional way the purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion was party financed by an Iraqi billionaire.
Why did Obama get hired as a "summer associate" in 1989 at the law firm which had hired Ayers' wife, and where Ayers' father was a prominent friend of the managing partner at Sidley & Austin? The answer is obvious. Ayers was grooming Obama as his future "front."
Where did Obama get his first and only legal job after Harvard? At a law firm where Tony Rezko was a prominent client and where name partner Judson Miner was a law school classmate of Bernadine Dohrn-Ayers. Yes, the pieces are starting to come together.
Was Obama telling ABC the truth when he said met the Ayers' at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995? Ayers had already been working with Obama for seven years; Ayers had appointed Obama to head a $50 million foundation. Did Ayers appoint a stranger? Or a front man? The answer is obvious.
(snip)
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/09/andy-martin-hammers-barack-obama-over.html
Excerpt:
1989 Tom Ayers and William Ayers get Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin (where he meets Michelle Obama); Ayers' wife Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley at about the same time as Barack and Michelle.
I can’t believe that the judge did not make some sort of up or down ruling. Most liberal judges love to make decisions from the bench.
Thank you VERY much for the Ping Dawg! I have been waiting for your thread!
D
Order... yes. Memorandum of Law... NO WAY!!
Seaman doesn’t work for Surrick now, he works for the firm that Bernadine Dhorn, and Michelle-Baraks old firm, the firm that Ayers got the Job for Obama FOR...
yea, frickin web of corruption.
It came out Friday night.
ping
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Bergs allegations of harm were too vague and too attenuated to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Bergs 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.
The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did not constitute an injury in fact and Bergs arguments to the contrary ventured into the unreasonable.
I was thinking “Faxing a Fax”?? Haven’t they heard of attaching a doc to an email? BUT, email would leave a record so perhaps Faxing is a no discovery option when the sender immediately shreds the original.
Grounds for an appeal and see how this one is explained?? If they don’t do cross shredding, might be some interesting trash from the Chicago law office.
no problem!
We need to flood both the media and congress. I have created a new petition to demand the media look into Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency. This petition sends letters to various media outlets. Please sign and pass it around.
Then the People must remove him.
Mike
Then POTUS Biden will receive instructions to nominate a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton for VPOTUS and does so. She will sail through the confirmation process. Three months later, POTUS Biden will succumb to a mysterious, virulent, and fatal follicle infection, elevating the devastated Clinton to POTUS.
Biden becomes President and next in line the VP.
Guess whose next in line.
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."
Really? So now any claim that the Constitution is being violated can be dismissed because the harm of the violation is too vague? As if just violating the Constitution is not enough. Now you have to prove to some judge that the harm hurts you enough to warrant the court enforcing the Constitution.
Lost your right to free speech? Ahh, you keeping your mouth shut doesn't seem that harmful to Judge Surrick. DISMISSED!
Gov't closed down your church and told you to worship in a mosque? Ahh, Jesus or Allah, the difference seems vague to Judge Surrick. DISMISSED!
Gov't confiscated your gun? Ahh, the likelihood that you'll need to defend yourself seems vague to Judge Surrick. Sorry, DISMISSED!
Wow, we are in for a wild ride.
Do you have a link to a readable version of the decision? The one i just downloaded is painful to read. Looks like it came off an old mimeograph machine.
No, I’m sorry I don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.