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
I remember talking to one of the lawyers in the New Jersey case about the basis on which it was resolved but I don't remember whether an order was issued or not.
The territory of Arizona was not subject to a sovereign power other than the government of the United States between the date Goldwater was born and the date the territory was incorporated in the United States as the state of Arizona.
You’ve got me on the Goldwater cases; I had no idea it was an issue with him. I’m 45, which as far as I can tell is fairly young in terms of FReeper demographics.
Was Goldwater a military brat born overseas, or what?
Apparently it should be the DNC who Berg should be suing then. I know he's a dem, but someone should do it. It was they who falsly submitted him for the nomination because they either didn't check his credentials or they ignored them.
Yea. thats right.
its up to the Political Party to Vet its candidates, and its up to US to see that it happens. Democrats are apparently utterly uninterested in the truth, or in history, let alone protecting America. They ponied up a Manchurian candidate! Nothing short of astounding.
Thanks!
Yeah this is definitely what the call a case of “first impression”. It’s one of those things in life, I suppose, that we just take for granted perhaps because it seems so simple. It seems a simple enough thing to check. And, regardless of which side one takes as to what has been produced by way of a BC from the Obama camp, it is clearly not as simple as it once seemed.
Having said that . . . standing.
Since the courts have, obviously, never addressed this particular issue before (can’t find any other eligibility cases so far where citizens have sued) the courts will rely on other similar standing cases.
The first type are the taxpayer cases. There are TONS of those. A taxpayer doesn’t like that his taxes are being spent on the Iraq War and sues. He doesn’t have standing. Even if he is in Iraq and is being shot at. He doesnt’ have standing. The test is “is his ‘injury’ significantly different than that from the population at large? By ‘injury’ I mean the effect of the action (spending of taxes on Iraq) taken by the government. And even if he/she is in Iraq getting shot at, he/she is no different from any other taxpayer. Again, part of the reason for this type of ruling is that to rule otherwise could easily cause a flood of millions of taxpayer cases.
But perhaps the example is best expressed through the following type of case. Let’s say I don’t like the fact that there someone is opening class with a prayer in a local public school. And let’s say that I am a raving athiest. As a taxpayer, I sue. I don’t have standing. Now if my kid went to that school, I would have standing. That is what I mean by unique damage.
Now courts will open cases like unto this to larger groups to sue. And this would be the only argument I could see that would have ANY shot at working in what Berg is trying to do. That would be license plate cases. There have been some cases where any taxpaying citizen could sue to ask to be removed phrases they may deem “inappropriate.”
Now the other “lack of standing” cases are a bit different. Those would be the ones recently ruled upon concerning the Ohio Secty or State. The reason that those where thrown out by SCOTUS is because the statute under which the GOP was suing (HAVA) did not give them standing. The cause of action, i.e. the reason there was any suit at all, was not some constitutional issue, it was only there because of a statute passed by Congress. And it was ruled that Congress only gave the DOJ the right to pursue this.
As an aside, whenever any suit is filed in Federal Court, it is required that you put in the pleadings upon what you base your standing claim. It, along with jurisdiction, is the first thing at which a court looks. You don’t get by standing and you go no further. That is why it was pretty immaterial that the Obama camp didn’t respond to the Discovery. The court hadn’t even yet ruled that the case could even be a case.
So, I turned out to be a bit more long winded than intended (insert lawyer joke here). =) And there will certainly be cases out there where it seems that the court is ruling a bit differently than these basic rules. And that is one of the jobs of the lawyer . . . argue to the court that those favorable cases should apply to this case.
But my conclusion is that there will never be a favorable ruling on standing for private citizens in this case. It will never be ruled that they have a right to bring this case. And the reason isn’t so much the nature of this case, as to allow it would be precedent to allow other types of private citizen cases, i.e. taxpayer cases, that heretofor the courts have been loathe to accept.
Hope this helped and made some sense.
And no, I didn’t go back and proof read this post either. =) I so miss my assistant. lol
BTTT!
And remember, those are not current dollars, so back tracking through infaltion, the value was even higher than 80K in our dollars! And his ONLY claim to fame?... First Blackman to head the Harvard Law Reveiew, a student publication.
Is that case referred to in the decision? If so, I missed it. If it is could oyu tell me hat page? Had a little trouble reading that copy.
And, as an aside, the Hollander case referred to in there is JUST like this one. It’s the one where McCain was sued for being born in the Panama Canal zone. The courts dismissed that one for lack of standing and the issue was identical.
And, yes, parties can settle anything and standing doesnt’ matter. However, a Defendant can not agree to standing for the Plaintiff. The Defendant just can’t say “I don’t care.” Also, courts have often ruled there is no standing where the Defendant didn’t even raise it.
Let me know where you found that Goldwater case and I’ll look =)
Well n00b, you started with a strawman and really beat the hell out of it didn’t ya! ... “If they were given ‘other’ documents, when these rumors started, they would have immediately begun investigating.” Nice agitprop work there, n00b. Disgusting Obamoperatives are scuzzying up the FR homesite.
We need to do something. I think we also need to set up a “safe place” to meet when the time comes. These guys will control the media lock, stock and barrel. 90% is on their side and the other 10% will be shut down. We will need a place to get in contact when the time comes.
If you have a tape, release it. IF not, sthu.
You tripped over the first strawman, but you can be excused for ‘that’ since you’re so new here?
Have you been following the Florida interview of Joe the Senator? It's been all over FOX this AM.
Oh yeah. I had totally forgotten about this issue. Let me see what I can find. =)
There is no criminal activity that the democrtas will not perform in their lust for power. They proved this with their use of abortion slaughtering millions of alive unborn as a means to empower the demcorat party and its candidates. And Obama is more radical in this wickedness than even Hillary or Boxer would entertain.
The main reason so many are willing to believe the worst about Obama is because he is so completely untrustworthy. He has not earned our trust by being honest and forthright and transparent. He Obfuscates, and out right lies and completely misrepresents so much on so many different issues that more and more people are coming to distrust him.
Its the lack of trust that is most seriously at Issue.
Hale stated on a blog that was partially copied to an earlier thread that they actually are aware of a registry of birth dated about a week after his birth. (Insider in HI) A “Registry of birth is NOT a birth certificate. It was not signed by the DR or verified by any hospital. Just states a child was born.
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.