Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot [Berg's lawsuit]

Philadelphia Daily News ^ | Oct. 25, 2008 | Michael Hinkelman

[casinva]

Hoosiermama and Brian Fitzgerald,

Now, there IS an interesting thought.... that this might be a good turn of events which allow Mr. Berg to be able to start at an even earlier date to have this go onto the higher courts.

Some of you are really upset to hear about these MO tapes that may or may not exist, but some close contacts have reported that Mr. Berg did in fact receive some tapes a couple of evenings ago. I had, even before this, thought that if the judge took a couple of days before making any decisions, that it was because he may have been waiting for voice verifications (or waiting for Mr. Berg to confirm voice verification).

Please do not flame me guys for bringing this up. There are many attorneys speaking up on that website as well about these possible tapes. Believe me, they are not discounted by a LOT of educated people as yet. If you see those tapes as evidence in a court case about constitutional qualification—to be used with other evidence— or even allow the possibility of such a thing to happen sometime in the future even if you don’t believe in these specific tapes, you ... we can all be sadly reminded that our country is confused about what to do in a situation like we have with Obama’s lack of a valid birth certificate.

[Brian S. Fitzgerald]

correction:

Question:

Can a member of Congress, who will be asked to assent to the results of the vote of the Electoral College on Jan 6th, 2008 2009, issue subpoenas to obtain necessary documents to ascertain eligibility of the President-elect?

[NoGrayZone]

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.

Not funny haha....but smashing your funny bone funny.

[NoGrayZone]

How can the judge rule “did not have standing” when a legit birth certificate has NOT been produced? We The People have lost our Free Republic.

[balls]

I think we now see a formula that an enemy foreign government government could use to take control of our Presidency. It’s empirically so easy.

[casinva]

I have that same question.

What I have a problem with, if Congress does have some say in constitutional qualifications, is who oversees THEIR vetting then? Do we really have anyone that has the right to challenge if THEY meet the qualifications or not either?

[jackv]

The five-pointed red star, a pentagram without the inner pentagon, is a symbol of communism as well as broader socialism in general. It is sometimes understood to represent the five fingers of the worker's hand, as well as the five continents. A lesser known suggestion is that the five points on the star were intended to represent the five social groups that would lead Russia to communism: the youth, the military, the industrial labourers, the agricultural workers or peasantry, and the intelligentsia. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels used the red star as a symbol[citation needed]. It was also one of the emblems, symbols, and signals representing the Soviet Union under the rule and guidance of the Communist Party, along with the hammer and sickle. The star has since become a symbol.************************************************ This red star is embedded in obama's materials. He's telling the Americans the truth, if they just know what it means!! Check out his store: http://www.democratnationalcommittee.com/candidates/barack_obama.htm?gclid=COTRgvrYwpYCFQykagodZj8FygtAmericans

[VigilantAmerican]

Oooohhhh...now that’s a good question, and a good angle to consider/attack...

[FTL]

The Obama - Ayers Doctrine awaits you, Conservative America.

Ayers has been planning for 40 years to eliminate all Conservatives from America and install a permanent totalitarian Marxist regime.

This is simply the old Fifth Column Communist strategy - and looks like they are about to succeed.

Wonder what the top military leadership is thinking about the implications of all this? One of Obama - Ayers top priorities will be to replace military leadership with their operatives. That is how it always begins.

[Colonel_Flagg]

The fix is in.

[hoosiermama]

Uncharted groud....Are there any constitutional lawyers on FR. I’ve just slept in Holiday Inns.

[Dukie07]

Maybe I’m silly, but I find it impossible to believe that Mr. Obama has not, at some point in his life, produced a birth certificate to obtain, let’s say, a driver’s license, a social security card?? I would also think that documentation of that production exists. And, I am quite sure that if such documentation proved that Mr. Obama was not born in the USofA, it would have been found out and revealed for all the world to see by a member of the conservative nation (yes, I have that much faith in said nation). To answer the inevitable question, “Why, then, if this is the case, has not some member of the liberal nation yet produced the proof?” Who knows? Maybe they’re waiting for the infomercial? Or, they prefer to follow the privacy laws of the land? I sense this may be much ado about nothing....

[casinva]

In a “common person’s” answer (me being the common person) grin...

I think the judge was saying that neither Mr. Berg, nor any American VOTER, has the right to ask for a birth certificate in HIS court to begin with. That is what “standing means — that the person filing the suit had no right to do anything about the situation, at least in a specific way they are trying to do it at the time.

Along with that comes the idea of needing to be “hurt” to have a say so... to have the right to do something about a situation.

The judge’s acceptance of hurt or perceived hurt (to Mr. Berg as a citizen or voter... to us ALL as citizens or voters) was, in that judge’s mind not proven enough. The judge apparently didn’t think Mr. Berg had the right (standing) in that SPECIFIC court to say he was hurt and that he did not prove he knew for sure he WOULD be hurt — the kind of “hurt” that would be needed to proceed in that court. (Like........ if Obama didn’t get voted in, we would not hurt, even if he WASN’T qualified, since he would not have been voted in, and he apparently could not speculate enough that we WOULD be hurt in the future, since we can’t know the future and don’t know if he will be voted in or not.) Hope that made sense there!

I agree with others here that this might be best done in other higher courts anyway.

[Klepto]

Ya know, that is a fascinating question and one that I have kicked around with an old colleague of mine. I was a state trial judge (a trial lawyer before) and handled a lot of constitutional issues but they related mostly to constitutional law as it pertained to criminal cases (4th amendment, etc.) And we concluded as follows:

It can not ever be a private citizen. Without trudging through the history of why (tax cases) that is a settled proposition. So who?

Likely a governmental entity on behalf of the people, i.e the Attorney General, Congress, etc. We also concluded that the DNC could (lol, yeah I know, don’t laugh). Also, and most interesting, once the person is POTUS, then, since he is CIC, certainly the Joint Chiefs and perhaps any general. A state also probably has standing.

In short, it would have to be a governmental entity on behalf of the people and not the people themselves. And I DO understand the argument “well it affects me as a citizen”. Of course it does, but for any number of reasons that issue has been decided time and again by every federal court including SCOTUS. A private citizen will never have standing to do this.

Hope that helps.

[Brown Deer]

This judge is an embarassment.

Don't forget that most judges were at one time, lawyers. There are always two sides to a case, so half of our lawyers are defending the wrong side. Judges are supposed to be impartial, but think about it, they were brought up as very partial lawyers, and have the experience to slant their decisions however they wish to decide it. The judge in this case, is a long-time democrat.

[Danae]

f - - k.

If we don’t have standing to question the eligiblity of a candidate, then WHO does? No one?

This country is finished, done for.

I am just sick.

[teletech]

The Marxist takeover of the USA is now complete UNLESS WE STOP IT AT THE BALLOT BOX!!!

[Free America52]

I’ve had a theory (hope?) all along that the FBI and CIA are involved in this. I would guess the feds would prefer that this came out as a civil case (a la Berg), instead of a criminal case (FBI, CIA, etc.). The risks are huge if the feds bring charges against Obama. If it was a civil case, it would be more that “Obama just screwed up” type of deal. I don’t think it’s over. I would assume - that if these allegations are true - that the federal government is waiting to exhaust all civil opportunities, and will step in appropriately. If we see no action from the feds, it’s one of 2 things: 1) these allegations are bogus, or 2) the fix is really in and the feds are surrendering to whatever / whoever is behind Obama.

[Danae]

Go back to DU.

[Brian S. Fitzgerald]

What I have a problem with, if Congress does have some say in constitutional qualifications, is who oversees THEIR vetting then? Do we really have anyone that has the right to challenge if THEY meet the qualifications or not either?

Obama is a relative unknown. Most candidates for President in the major Parties were well known and were established as 'natural born citizens' long before they ran for President.

We can broaden the question from Obama to the constituents of Congress in all elections. Should we examine now the thousands of candidates running for US Representative and hundreds for US Senator today? How many of them are not properly vetted, or have been given the open door?