Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Polarik
Not exactly. Berg can initiate civil lawsuits on the same complaint in the courts of every state where the thresholds for burden of proof most definitely are different.
Maybe he could but he filed a federal lawsuit not a state lawsuit.

Did you read the order? It summarizes the arguments of both sides and the court's judgments about the law. Read the arguments that went out under Ted Olson's (Bush's former Solicitor General) signature. The court accepted part of his arguments in dismissing the suit and didn't rule on the rest (without standing there was no need to).

The first action in court will be Obama's motion to dismiss and it will be granted using the same reasoning. My opinion is unimportant. Read the court's well supported opinion. It's not rocket science.

93 posted on 09/05/2008 9:01:56 AM PDT by 21stCenturyFreeThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: 21stCenturyFreeThinker

Thanks for providing the link to the dismissal order. Very informative.

So basically nobody except a competing candidate or a defeated candidate has standing to sue, apparently?

Beyond campaigning and voting, what can any mere citizen do about an ineligible candidate being elected?

Unless Polarik is onto something with the individual states’ requirements approach...

But having read Berg’s complaint, it seemed that he was making more of a class-action argument(though he doesn’t pitch/file it that way explicitly) by mentioning the millions of dollars in donations, time volunteered, material support, etc., being defrauded from Hussein/Hillary/DNC supporters...those “damages” would give him standing, no? As a Democrat defrauded of specific campaign donations, etc., toward a bogus candidate?

Got my fingers crossed. If nothing else, Berg’s suit serves to stir the controversy that much more, and increase suspicion of Hussein’s eligibility, even if it gets thrown out.

Hussein’s words, actions, and associations/collaborations certainly indicate his divided or non-existent loyalty to the U.S., even if documents and such can’t be ruled conclusive or are “validated.”

And then there’s always that voter turnout verdict; perhaps making certifigate rather moot after all.

Ironically, the one person clearly with standing dares not throw stones, for obvious reasons.


98 posted on 09/05/2008 10:17:31 AM PDT by VigilantAmerican (We will not waver, we will not tire; we will not falter, we will not fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

To: 21stCenturyFreeThinker
Maybe he could but he filed a federal lawsuit not a state lawsuit.

Did you read the order? It summarizes the arguments of both sides and the court's judgments about the law. Read the arguments that went out under Ted Olson's (Bush's former Solicitor General) signature. The court accepted part of his arguments in dismissing the suit and didn't rule on the rest (without standing there was no need to).

The first action in court will be Obama's motion to dismiss and it will be granted using the same reasoning. My opinion is unimportant. Read the court's well supported opinion. It's not rocket science.

Yes, I read the suit, and I also spoke with Phil today about it.

103 posted on 09/05/2008 4:02:47 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson