Posted on 09/02/2008 1:36:23 AM PDT by Kevmo
Earlier, I believe you assented to the idea that a court will stop a fraud that is underway in order to prevent future damages. Those damages, I also believe, do not have to be exactly enumerated when they haven’t even occurred yet.
If Berg doesn’t have standing, why didn’t the judge throw the case out?
In Berg’s case, or in my hypothetical class action to stop Hussein, the prospective total “damages” presented by having an ineligible POTUS utterly defy tabulation. Yet you persist.
I’ve admitted that I’m not an attorney, yet my familiarity with the principles involved(along with common sense) allows me to confidently say you’re wrong.
What are your qualifications to comment as you have been? And BTW, are you a supporter of Hussein?
The problem is that no damages have been identified. Berg has not shown any standing because he hasn't shown where he himself is suffering injury by Obama's candidacy. He has to show how exactly Obama's running has caused him harm. And it has to be concrete; he can't say cite some sort of hypothetical, like it's damaging his faith in the electoral process.
If Berg doesn’t have standing, why didn’t the judge throw the case out?
I'm sure it will be. To date the judge has just ruled on the immediate request and has denied the injunction. That in itself is not a good sign because it shows that the judge is not convinced that Berg is suffering any immediate harm by Obama's actions. The rest of the case is in the preliminary phases.
In Berg’s case, or in my hypothetical class action to stop Hussein, the prospective total “damages” presented by having an ineligible POTUS utterly defy tabulation.
Then by all means persist. Have at it. What's one more frivilous lawsuit in the court system? But don't blame me for the way the legal system works.
I’ve admitted that I’m not an attorney, yet my familiarity with the principles involved(along with common sense) allows me to confidently say you’re wrong.
Your confidence in your admitted lack of knowledge is impressive, to say the least. No doubt when Berg's suit gets tossed, or this suit against McCain gets tossed, you will chalk it up to a corrupt judge and a biased court. And there is nothing that I or anyone else will ever be able to do to convince you otherwise.
The judge has not “denied the injunction”, because that is what the entire suit is about—obtaining an injunction against Obama’s candidacy. The judge HAS denied a temporary restraining order.
Berg’s specific standing relates to his being a member of the Democrat party, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Did you even read his complaint? I suspect not. He does, in fact, mention specific damages in the complaint, which I pointed out earlier. You seem to have trouble tracking and/or processing facts.
Unless you try to convince me that you’re a lawyer(or otherwise qualified to pontificate as you have), I’ll just ignore your impertinence.
If our discussion has shown me anything it's that I'm not likely to change your mind on any subject at all, much less one you admit to knowing nothing about. I'll just sit back and let the legal system do it's work on both Berg and Robinson's frivilous suits. You be sure and ping me and let me know how mad you are that a likely Democratic judge and a corrupt court screwed Berg when they toss out his case.
I’ve already pointed out several points on which you’re wrong, i.e., your saying that the “injunction” was denied, and that Berg hasn’t addressed damages, etc.
You accuse me of being unreasonably obstinate, but despite my showing where you’ve been wrong on several points, you’re the one who won’t be persuaded by reason.
All I admitted to was not being a lawyer, not that I “know nothing about” of what I write. And I maintain that I know more about these matters than you do. You won’t even answer simple questions, like whether or not you read the complaint, whether or not you have legal training, etc.
And if Berg’s suit IS thrown out, does that by necessity mean that Berg has no standing, or will it be the first time in history that a liberal Democrat judge and/or corrupt court ever tossed a suit for political reasons?
Restraining Order - An order in the nature of an injunction which may issue upon filing of an application for an injunction forbidding the defendant from doing the threatened act until a hearing on the application can be had.
And if Berg’s suit IS thrown out, does that by necessity mean that Berg has no standing, or will it be the first time in history that a liberal Democrat judge and/or corrupt court ever tossed a suit for political reasons?
See? Your mind is made up already. Berg is right, and if it get's thrown out then it's due to a corrupt system rather than an headline-chasing attorney with a bogus case. And there is nothing that I or anyone else could ever do to convince you otherwise. So by all means follow these two suits. Hell, file one of your own. Be sure and let me know how if comes out.
Restraining Order - An order in the nature of an injunction which may issue upon filing of an application for an injunction forbidding the defendant from doing the threatened act until a hearing on the application can be had.
And if Berg’s suit IS thrown out, does that by necessity mean that Berg has no standing, or will it be the first time in history that a liberal Democrat judge and/or corrupt court ever tossed a suit for political reasons?
See? Your mind is made up already. Berg is right, and if it get's thrown out then it's due to a corrupt system rather than an headline-chasing attorney with a bogus case. And there is nothing that I or anyone else could ever do to convince you otherwise. So by all means follow these two suits. Hell, file one of your own. Be sure and let me know how if comes out.
A restraining order may be “in the nature” of an injunction, but the TRO which was denied in Berg v. Obama/DNC/FEC isn’t the same animal as the overall injunction which is the main objective of the Berg case, and which has not been denied because the suit is proceeding. I’m willing to believe that what you were referring to was the TRO.
Yes, I happen to believe Berg is right, despite his being a “9/11 truther” and otherwise my enemy re: Bush v. Gore 2000...but because I not only read his entire complaint, and endless supporting arguments in this forum and elsewhere, as well as believe Hussein does NOT meet the eligibility criteria to be POTUS, I insist that he has a case.
Hussein’s claims to intact natural born citizenship are highly dubious, and all of his words, actions, and close associations over the years identify someone whose loyalty to the U.S. is at least divided, if not non-existent.
I also happen to think you may be right that the suit could in some way be derailed, but not because of Berg’s motives, standing, etc.; I think the powers that be will either find a way to bamboozle key people into accepting a phony or illicitly-produced Hussein birth certificate, and/or that pressure will be brought to bear on certain people so as to avoid every major city in the U.S. being set ablaze and looted by rampaging “diversity” so that Hussein can be our first hip-hop President.
Our court system is party-driven. Assuming Berg has properly given notice to Obama's campaign, a motion to dismiss based on Berg's lack of standing (among other things) will be one of the first things his super-pricey lawyers will do.
Of course. But I think he has standing, therefore I think the case will go forward.
That is, until “diversity” and the reluctance to see every major U.S. city inflames trump the silly Constitutional notion that POTUS should have undivided national loyalites and uninterrupted, exclusive natural-born citizenship.
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.