Posted on 10/25/2008 3:52:37 PM PDT by Danae
Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end. UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
# # #
Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005 (610) 825-3134 (800) 993-PHIL [7445] Fax (610) 834-7659 philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>>>The judge, like many, may consider obama’s election much more likely now and may have simply looked for the noble way to bow out.
His opinion was not a noble way to bow out. He chose sides
and made it clear that he is a tool by suggesting that a private citizen has no standing in who is elected POTUS.
The “noble” way to bow out would have been a simple admission of the truth. This belongs in a higher court based on the lack of evidence.
Yep, I remember. I wasn’t refering to the final election I was refering to the Primaries, ALL of his competition got eliminated, including the INCUMBENT, on technicalities in the Petition signatures required to RUN in the primaries. It was Chicago Politics at its finest.
yeah, i figured i would get some replies over the use of ‘noble,’ which, if edit were available, I would have changed once I read the posted reply.
Should read “looked for the most pragmatic way to bow out.’”
more accurate?
Actually, I don’t think it is unprecedented.
There are rumors that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a VISA violation:
http://www.visalaw.com/03sep4/15sep403.html
And Senator Bob Menendez tells conflicting stories about when he actually ‘escaped’ Castro’s regime.
Maybe this is why so many support Amnesty. We have politicians that need to get in line for citizenship.
Technically you are not voting for Obama but for electors who say they will vote for Obama but who can vote for any eligible candidate.
Jefferson and Adams had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. Interestingly it is written to allow the Presidency of Alexander Hamilton who was not born in the colonies.
>>>Should read “looked for the most pragmatic way to bow out.’”... more accurate?
I understand your original point, but it doesn’t change my view of the judge.
I don’t see very much difference in the terminology.
I listened to Berg on Savage Nation. His position didn’t sound fringe or meaningless to me.
Is that what our justice system is about?... finding the most pragmatic way of passing the buck?
Our court system is OVERLOADED because lower courts dont have the BALLS to live up to their oath of defending the constitution! Consider all of the valid appeals to SCOTUS that will never see the light of day because lower court judges are either YELLOW or CORRUPT!
Pragmatic? isn’t that kind of like calling a gaff a rhetorical flourish? (not to insult)
If you go back to the Federalist you will find that the last thing the Founders wanted were political parties, they called them “factions”, which were deadly to a Republic.
That lasted until Jefferson and Madison founded the Democrat-Republican party to thwart Hamilton around 1790. It was born in corruption, deceit, lies through media and used dirty tricks as ably as its current descendent.
You asked about “candidates” not “officials”. Candidates indeed do NOT work for us.
i think, to my jaded mind, pragmatic is a government judicial employee deciding they really want out of this one, and thus letting the probable winner of the election, in their opinion (?), write their opinion, hoping to avoid a generation of IRS audits for all of their children and grandchildren.
Have you ever heard about something called :The "Drive-By" media???
Give us the cite.
The answer to your question is "four".
Ref. your Post #35: Don’t hold your breath.
Phone Numbner for the USSC Clerk’s Office: 202-479-3011.
Time to start calling to demand that the USSC take the case and enforce the Constitution.
Oh... and another thing to consider...
One of the court system’s favorite ways to dodge an issue is to use “precedence”. Judges will simply rely upon previous rulings (right or wrong) to dismiss a case or to repeat the same bad judgment over and over again based upon their biased leanings. In doing so, they point their finger of blame at another judge like you might point your finger at the dog after passing gas.
This judge went beyond his duty to rule in this case.
He set a NEW precedence by claiming that a citizen does not have “standing” in POTUS. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear this appeal, This lower court judge has just set one of the most dangerous precedences in our nations history.
Future cases involving challenges to an elected official will be dismissed as a result of this one.
Only four Justices are needed to hear the suit? That’s good.
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.