If the name sounds familiar, it should. Philip Berg is the attorney suing to have Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate released to the public. There may be questions about Obama's legitimacy in running for the office of President of the United States. The Constitution requires that all candidates must be "a natural born citizen":
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President
African Press International (API) claims to have audio recordings of Michelle Obama in a bigoted rant against "American bloggers" and anti-Obama media outlets (Fox?).
The release has taken long due to the fact that API wanted to clear all legal hurdles and be safe from getting sued by any one. API and a US Law firm - LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG has just entered into an agreement giving the law firm the right to represent API in all matters that may arise due to the Michelle Obama interview and the release of the tapes in the US.
API has realised that the interview with Mrs Obama is of great significance in the coming elections. The release of the tapes is not intended to derail the elections or to destroy the chances that Mr Obama may have in getting elected the first black president of the United States.
According to API, Michelle Obama stated, among other things (emphasis mine):
“African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists [Ed: American bloggers who oppose Obama] against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father.
So, Michelle Obama thinks her husband is above the law, and that the color of his skin obliges American citizens to vote for him. Qualifications and legitimacy mean nothing.
Martin Luther King once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Yet, the Obamas would have us turn the clock back to a time when people were judged by skin color and not character.
How sad that America has come to this state.
It is ironic that the very attorney who is challenging Obama's eligibility for the office of President of the United States will represent API with these tapes. If they are released, I will make every effort to obtain them and publish them here at SnappedShot.
[Update] A birth certificate has been located. But is it really authentic? You be the judge:
Tags: dmartyr Daily Fodder
Comments:
#2 upyernoz 20-Oct-2008
actually, nothing says that api is a fake news organization more than the fact than they got phil berg as their attorney. i'm also an attorney in philadelphia and mr. berg is rather notorious for his high-profile but completely meritless legal work. berg once filed a lawsuit against president bush claiming that the president was involved in the 9/11 attacks. he sought to have several justices of the surpreme court disbarred because of their bush v. gore decision. feel free to google around, there are a ton of nutty berg lawsuits out there.
i think it's hilarious that the right is embracing our proud local nutbag attorney, simply because he preferred clinton during the primary and so now has declared his usual legally suspect jihad against obama.
i think it's hilarious that the right is embracing our proud local nutbag attorney, simply because he preferred clinton during the primary and so now has declared his usual legally suspect jihad against obama.
#3 Zamphir 20-Oct-2008
Yeah, I think it's a phony too. The actual legitimate Africa news service everybody uses is allAfrica.com , which is a good site. Check it out...
#4 mantis 20-Oct-2008
Important Update: You are a gullible moron.
#5 captainfish 20-Oct-2008
You know guys, and thanks for coming to visit, but "the right" is not embracing him. For one thing, I think his suit has already been tossed once already. And, if you notice, Brian did not take a side on this or lean for or against the attorney. He only raised the possibility that there may be questions. As long as there is a suit, there are questions.
Would "the right" be ecstatic should something be raised over Obama's citizenship? Sure. As I am very sure that "the left" has gloated over the questions of McCain's citizenship. Tell me you didn't?!
And, if you will also kindly notice, he pasted a completely farcical birth certificate. Wouldn't normal people then take his whole post as a comical one? Or, are you people so ignorant that you just jump at any chance to shoot down "the right".
BTW you MORON, the quote was "I know that there is [u][b]no[/b][/u] law that will stop him from becoming the president,"
Would "the right" be ecstatic should something be raised over Obama's citizenship? Sure. As I am very sure that "the left" has gloated over the questions of McCain's citizenship. Tell me you didn't?!
And, if you will also kindly notice, he pasted a completely farcical birth certificate. Wouldn't normal people then take his whole post as a comical one? Or, are you people so ignorant that you just jump at any chance to shoot down "the right".
BTW you MORON, the quote was "I know that there is [u][b]no[/b][/u] law that will stop him from becoming the president,"
#6 captainfish 21-Oct-2008
oops. Sorry, DMartyr. Didn't mean to steal your thunder. Meant to type your name in my response but it came out as brian.
Kudos to DMartyr.
Kudos to DMartyr.
#7 upyernoz 21-Oct-2008
nd, if you notice, Brian did not take a side on this or lean for or against the attorney. He only raised the possibility that there may be questions. As long as there is a suit, there are questions.
but there is no suit. no one has sued api, they've just lawyered up in case they later are. so by your logic, doesn't that mean that we're back to there not being any questions?
As I am very sure that "the left" has gloated over the questions of McCain's citizenship. Tell me you didn't?!
i didn't. it's pretty obvious that the court would never touch an issue like that. that's why the judiciary invented the political question doctrine.
And, if you will also kindly notice, he pasted a completely farcical birth certificate. Wouldn't normal people then take his whole post as a comical one? Or, are you people so ignorant that you just jump at any chance to shoot down "the right".
i don't know about the others, but the update (which includes the fake birth certificate) wasn't posted when i wrote my comment.
but there is no suit. no one has sued api, they've just lawyered up in case they later are. so by your logic, doesn't that mean that we're back to there not being any questions?
As I am very sure that "the left" has gloated over the questions of McCain's citizenship. Tell me you didn't?!
i didn't. it's pretty obvious that the court would never touch an issue like that. that's why the judiciary invented the political question doctrine.
And, if you will also kindly notice, he pasted a completely farcical birth certificate. Wouldn't normal people then take his whole post as a comical one? Or, are you people so ignorant that you just jump at any chance to shoot down "the right".
i don't know about the others, but the update (which includes the fake birth certificate) wasn't posted when i wrote my comment.
#8 DMartyr 21-Oct-2008
Capt was referring to the birth certificate lawsuit, which the courts should take up as it is a CONSTITUTIONAL question - Is B. Hussein Obama even qualified to run for the office of U.S. President?
If he is, why doesn't he present his birth certificate? And please don't link me to the digital copy kos posted. Obama needs to make the original embossed certificate available.
It seems you Obamamaniacs would rather America face a constitutional crisis by electing an unqualified candidate and then challenging the consequences later. You know very well once Obama is in office, it would be near impossible to remove him if we were to later discover he is unqualified. That is your agenda. You care little about how it would affect later elections or how it would undermine the safety and security of America. No, you only care about getting your messiah into office.
How pathetically unpatriotic is that?
We have a constitution to uphold. If Obama is unwilling to respect that, what makes you think he has America's best interest at heart? It is obvious liberals are selfishly pushing their socialist agenda at the expense of everything America stand for. It's just very sad you would sacrifice the greatest country on earth for your own short-term gains.
If he is, why doesn't he present his birth certificate? And please don't link me to the digital copy kos posted. Obama needs to make the original embossed certificate available.
It seems you Obamamaniacs would rather America face a constitutional crisis by electing an unqualified candidate and then challenging the consequences later. You know very well once Obama is in office, it would be near impossible to remove him if we were to later discover he is unqualified. That is your agenda. You care little about how it would affect later elections or how it would undermine the safety and security of America. No, you only care about getting your messiah into office.
How pathetically unpatriotic is that?
We have a constitution to uphold. If Obama is unwilling to respect that, what makes you think he has America's best interest at heart? It is obvious liberals are selfishly pushing their socialist agenda at the expense of everything America stand for. It's just very sad you would sacrifice the greatest country on earth for your own short-term gains.
#9 upyernoz 21-Oct-2008
DMartyr, you're hilarious. there's no danger of a constitutional crisis. first, even if Obama were born outside the u.s. he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen. that's why once you venture beyond the wingnut-o-sphere, most of the world views this whole "controversy" as a joke. the joke is made even funnier when your peeps refused to accept the birth certification, or the fact that the honolulu newspaper published a birth announcement, this proving that not only does your eligibility argument make no sense, but also that nothing will convince you otherwise. as I said, the fact that a certified lunatic 9/11 conspiracy theorist has signed onto your cause itself speaks volumes about it's merits
and finally, there will be no constitutional crisis because the courts won't touch it under the political question doctrine. instead, I predict that after Obama becomes president you'll still be fuming about his eligibility but no one aside from the fringe right will care. you'll end up about as influential as the leftwingers who claim that bush stole the election in 2004 because of diebold voting machines.
and finally, there will be no constitutional crisis because the courts won't touch it under the political question doctrine. instead, I predict that after Obama becomes president you'll still be fuming about his eligibility but no one aside from the fringe right will care. you'll end up about as influential as the leftwingers who claim that bush stole the election in 2004 because of diebold voting machines.
#10 Rooster 21-Oct-2008
OMG, too many words... nobody cares.
#11 DMartyr 22-Oct-2008
Lol, upyernoz, one major difference between me and those 2004 'leftwingers' (which you are whether you admit it or not) is that you won't see this wussy crap from me:
http://www.sorryeverybody.com
Go vote blindly and stupidly. Biden has promised an economical crisis during the first 6 months of an Obama presidency. Oops, I meant an "international crisis". Same difference. You Obamamites are just too ignorant to see the difference.
If only you loved America more than you hated Bush.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com
Go vote blindly and stupidly. Biden has promised an economical crisis during the first 6 months of an Obama presidency. Oops, I meant an "international crisis". Same difference. You Obamamites are just too ignorant to see the difference.
If only you loved America more than you hated Bush.
#12 upyernoz 22-Oct-2008
"upyernoz, one major difference between me and those 2004 'leftwingers' (which you are whether you admit it or not) is that you won't see this wussy crap from me"
this is great! you simply cannot stick to a single subject. you realize that the "sorryeverybody.com" people are not the same people who thought the election was stolen? the "stolen election" people weren't apologizing because they were convinced they had won!
so first you write a post about the bogus api story and how they got the same crazy lawyer as the one who filed the lawsuit claiming obama wasn't eligible. and then, in response to my comment about the lawyer, you shift gears and start talking about the "constitutional crisis" that would follow an obama presidency. and then, when i address that and compare you to the "bush stole the election" crowd, then you shift again and start talking about the "sorryeverybody.com" folks even though they are, by definition, different from the stolen election group.
oh, and then you shift again, bringing up some boneheaded comment by biden. there are certainly no shortage of them. but so what? none of this is at all responsive to the points i make here. it's almost like you don't have a coherent response and keep shifting the topic to avoid having to give one.
at least that's the impression i get from reading this thread. it is pretty funny to watch your twists and turns.
this is great! you simply cannot stick to a single subject. you realize that the "sorryeverybody.com" people are not the same people who thought the election was stolen? the "stolen election" people weren't apologizing because they were convinced they had won!
so first you write a post about the bogus api story and how they got the same crazy lawyer as the one who filed the lawsuit claiming obama wasn't eligible. and then, in response to my comment about the lawyer, you shift gears and start talking about the "constitutional crisis" that would follow an obama presidency. and then, when i address that and compare you to the "bush stole the election" crowd, then you shift again and start talking about the "sorryeverybody.com" folks even though they are, by definition, different from the stolen election group.
oh, and then you shift again, bringing up some boneheaded comment by biden. there are certainly no shortage of them. but so what? none of this is at all responsive to the points i make here. it's almost like you don't have a coherent response and keep shifting the topic to avoid having to give one.
at least that's the impression i get from reading this thread. it is pretty funny to watch your twists and turns.
#13 DMartyr 24-Oct-2008
My comments about the "constitutional crisis" was in direct response to your comments to Capt.
You obviously don't care about upholding the constitution if it means getting your candidate in office, but that potential violation happens to be an important issue to me.
I guess that's one of the more fundamental difference between McCain supporters and Obama supporter. For us, it's about the future of America and protecting its values. For you, its about gaining power by any means necessary.
If I appear to be 'twisting and turning' it is only in utter dismay at the blatant irreverence to the rule of law Obama and his followers have displayed.
You obviously don't care about upholding the constitution if it means getting your candidate in office, but that potential violation happens to be an important issue to me.
I guess that's one of the more fundamental difference between McCain supporters and Obama supporter. For us, it's about the future of America and protecting its values. For you, its about gaining power by any means necessary.
If I appear to be 'twisting and turning' it is only in utter dismay at the blatant irreverence to the rule of law Obama and his followers have displayed.
#14 upyernoz 24-Oct-2008
"You obviously don't care about upholding the constitution if it means getting your candidate in office, but that potential violation happens to be an important issue to me."
of course i care. i'm just pointing out that the obama candidacy doesn't violate the constitution. in fact, the entire theory that he isn't eligible doesn't make any sense. you've have to believe that in 1961 his family forced a birth certificate, and planted a birth announcement in the honolulu newspapers so that, just in case barack ever wanted to be president, they could hide his secret birth in kenya from the world, even though if he were born in kenya, he still would be eligible for the presidency anyway.
that's why the whole theory is the subject of so much mockery. it's crazy on its face, and even if you were right about his foreign birth, he's still eligible to be president under the constitution because he was born a citizen. only certified nut-jobs like berg and other people desperate to find a way to undermine the obama candidacy now that it's clear that they can't beat him at the polls, find anything appealing in the theory. to most of the world, it's a joke.
as for my alleged "irreverence" to the rule of law, that is the real joke. berg is famous for filing meritless lawsuits here in the philadelphia legal community. he's been criticized for abusing the judicial process to pursue his crazy paranoid fantasies like that 9/11 was planned by the bush administration. and yet you're jumping on board to his latest nutball theory even though obama would be legally eligible to be president even if he were born in another country.
which is why i find people like you to be so amusing.
of course i care. i'm just pointing out that the obama candidacy doesn't violate the constitution. in fact, the entire theory that he isn't eligible doesn't make any sense. you've have to believe that in 1961 his family forced a birth certificate, and planted a birth announcement in the honolulu newspapers so that, just in case barack ever wanted to be president, they could hide his secret birth in kenya from the world, even though if he were born in kenya, he still would be eligible for the presidency anyway.
that's why the whole theory is the subject of so much mockery. it's crazy on its face, and even if you were right about his foreign birth, he's still eligible to be president under the constitution because he was born a citizen. only certified nut-jobs like berg and other people desperate to find a way to undermine the obama candidacy now that it's clear that they can't beat him at the polls, find anything appealing in the theory. to most of the world, it's a joke.
as for my alleged "irreverence" to the rule of law, that is the real joke. berg is famous for filing meritless lawsuits here in the philadelphia legal community. he's been criticized for abusing the judicial process to pursue his crazy paranoid fantasies like that 9/11 was planned by the bush administration. and yet you're jumping on board to his latest nutball theory even though obama would be legally eligible to be president even if he were born in another country.
which is why i find people like you to be so amusing.
#15 upyernoz 24-Oct-2008
hey, and what ever happened to that api story? you know, before you tried to shift this whole discussion to your favorite fringe legal theories, that's what this was about, remember? isn't it funny how the "news organization" seems to be writing about little other than the alleged michelle obama tape these days? and why haven't they produced the audio like they promised?
(and why, for that matter, would a news organization use a free blogging softwear like wordpress to host their site? and why hadn't anyone heard of the api before now? even my brother who dealt with the media all the time when he lived in nairobi had never heard of the organization before this michelle obama thing.
(and why, for that matter, would a news organization use a free blogging softwear like wordpress to host their site? and why hadn't anyone heard of the api before now? even my brother who dealt with the media all the time when he lived in nairobi had never heard of the organization before this michelle obama thing.
#16 Gary Baumgarten 24-Oct-2008
Philip Berg will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com Tuesday October 28 at 5 PM New York time.
Please go to www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Show link to talk to him.
Thanks.
Please go to www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Show link to talk to him.
Thanks.
#17 27-Oct-2008
you bet those that already voted for him are stupid, gary b
#18 Kevin True 29-Oct-2008
Please advise if the court in PA, that ordered Obama to appear with a valid Birth Certificate after determining the live born record was falsified from his half sisters record and is not even a birth certificate but a registration record of half sister born in Kenya, has issued an arrest warrant based upon his DEMANDED court appearance default.
#19 upyernoz 29-Oct-2008
kevin true,
i love these crazy rightwing rumors!
actually, the PA lawsuit was thrown out by the court last week. you also don't seem to have much of a grip on federal civil procedure. you can't be arrested for a default in a civil action.
i love these crazy rightwing rumors!
actually, the PA lawsuit was thrown out by the court last week. you also don't seem to have much of a grip on federal civil procedure. you can't be arrested for a default in a civil action.
#20 Kevin True 29-Oct-2008
Thank you, now that is public record in civil court regarding forensic proof of falsified document, please advise what we are basing Obama's qualifications as a US born Citizen? Won't he need this to get sworn in if the democratic party is covering up this matter allowing the nomination contrary to US Constitution or are they to be relying on mob rule?
#21 upyernoz 29-Oct-2008
"Thank you, now that is public record in civil court regarding forensic proof of falsified document, please advise what we are basing Obama's qualifications as a US born Citizen?"
it's not public record. the lawsuit was dismissed by the court because berg had no standing to bring the suit and because his allegations were baseless.
it's not public record. the lawsuit was dismissed by the court because berg had no standing to bring the suit and because his allegations were baseless.
#22 Kevin True 29-Oct-2008
judgment notwithstanding the verdict
(N.O.V.) n. reversal of a jury's verdict by the trial judge when the judge believes there was no factual basis for the verdict or it was contrary to law. The judge will then enter a different verdict as "a matter of law." Essentially the judge should have required a "directed verdict" (instruction to the jury to return with a particular verdict since the facts allowed no other conclusion), and when the jury "went wrong," the judge uses the power to reverse the verdict instead of approving it, to prevent injustice. This process is commonly called "judgment N.O.V." or simply "N.O.V.," for Latin non obstante veredicto.
Hey upyerz: This wasn't dismissed there was a verdict and that exhibit is a public record. Is this the claimed birth certificate of Obama or a smoke screen?
(N.O.V.) n. reversal of a jury's verdict by the trial judge when the judge believes there was no factual basis for the verdict or it was contrary to law. The judge will then enter a different verdict as "a matter of law." Essentially the judge should have required a "directed verdict" (instruction to the jury to return with a particular verdict since the facts allowed no other conclusion), and when the jury "went wrong," the judge uses the power to reverse the verdict instead of approving it, to prevent injustice. This process is commonly called "judgment N.O.V." or simply "N.O.V.," for Latin non obstante veredicto.
Hey upyerz: This wasn't dismissed there was a verdict and that exhibit is a public record. Is this the claimed birth certificate of Obama or a smoke screen?
#23 upyernoz 30-Oct-2008
wow, kevin, thanks for the civil procedure refresher course. i do practice law every day, but i guess it is nice to have someone cut and paste the definition of a JNOV for me now and then.
except you're missing a critical fact. there was no verdict. the case was dismissed in the pre-trial stage. i.e. the judge threw out the case. there wasn't even discovery or any public evidentiary record. instead, we have the record of berg's allegations and the court's decision explaining why the judge threw the case out.
as for your claim that "This wasn't dismissed", did you read the first line of the article describing the disposition of the case? here it is again:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/10/federal-judge-dismisses-obama.php
in case you're too lazy to copy and paste that into your browser, here's how the article begins:
"Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the citizenship status and eligibility of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to become US president."
because i practice in federal court here in the eastern district of PA, i have access to the court's docket. if you want a pdf of the judge's actual decision i could easily email it to you.
not that i think giving you the decision stating that the case is "dismissed" would convince you that it was, in fact, dismissed. i find it really interesting that the obama-was-not-born-in-the-u.s. crowd are completely incapable of being convinced of anything other than their pre-established opinion, no matter what facts are presented to them. they don't believe the hawaii birth certification. they don't believe the statements of hawaii officials that there records do, in fact, show he was born in the state. they don't believe the contemporaneous 1961 birth announcement in the honolulu papers. they don't believe the fact that no birth record was ever recorded in kenya. and they don't seem to ever get that even if obama were born outside the u.s., he still would be eligible to be president because his mother was a u.s. citizen.
this whole thing is just a circus of stupid crazy people, who hold a belief so strongly they will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is shown to them.
which is why i find you guys so entertaining. but still, my offer to email you or anyone judge surrick's decision stands.
except you're missing a critical fact. there was no verdict. the case was dismissed in the pre-trial stage. i.e. the judge threw out the case. there wasn't even discovery or any public evidentiary record. instead, we have the record of berg's allegations and the court's decision explaining why the judge threw the case out.
as for your claim that "This wasn't dismissed", did you read the first line of the article describing the disposition of the case? here it is again:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/10/federal-judge-dismisses-obama.php
in case you're too lazy to copy and paste that into your browser, here's how the article begins:
"Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the citizenship status and eligibility of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to become US president."
because i practice in federal court here in the eastern district of PA, i have access to the court's docket. if you want a pdf of the judge's actual decision i could easily email it to you.
not that i think giving you the decision stating that the case is "dismissed" would convince you that it was, in fact, dismissed. i find it really interesting that the obama-was-not-born-in-the-u.s. crowd are completely incapable of being convinced of anything other than their pre-established opinion, no matter what facts are presented to them. they don't believe the hawaii birth certification. they don't believe the statements of hawaii officials that there records do, in fact, show he was born in the state. they don't believe the contemporaneous 1961 birth announcement in the honolulu papers. they don't believe the fact that no birth record was ever recorded in kenya. and they don't seem to ever get that even if obama were born outside the u.s., he still would be eligible to be president because his mother was a u.s. citizen.
this whole thing is just a circus of stupid crazy people, who hold a belief so strongly they will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is shown to them.
which is why i find you guys so entertaining. but still, my offer to email you or anyone judge surrick's decision stands.
#24 Kevin True 30-Oct-2008
It was reported to me as not withstanding from a new report. Why don't you first of all grow up like a mature lawyer and not provoke with your punk moniker and pompous overbearingness or maybe this is Obama, anyway you are welcomed to post the dismissal charges hear.
#25 upyernoz 30-Oct-2008
"It was reported to me as not withstanding from a new report."
so the article was a lie? why does the court docket for the case say the case was dismissed? (if you have access, go see for yourself. it is EDPA No. 08-cv-4083). and why aren't you citing your special source?
besides, based on your above responses, it sounds like your source has seriously misled you. you can't file a MJNOV (motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict) until there has been a jury verdict. there never was a trial in the case (trials don't happen that fast. the case was only filed in august 2008. if the court had not dismissed the case, the trial would have been some time around mid-2009)
i am sorry you think i am "pompous" "overbearing" and have a "punk moniker". i'm not trying to talk down to anyone. but i am pointing out that you are wrong and that this entire "controversy" has become a bit of a joke for most of the world.
"Anyway you are welcomed to post the dismissal charges hear."
i can't. it's a pdf. you can only access it online if you are a registered efiler with the court. as an efiler, i can download it to my hard drive. but that doesn't mean i can put it in the comments here.
so the article was a lie? why does the court docket for the case say the case was dismissed? (if you have access, go see for yourself. it is EDPA No. 08-cv-4083). and why aren't you citing your special source?
besides, based on your above responses, it sounds like your source has seriously misled you. you can't file a MJNOV (motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict) until there has been a jury verdict. there never was a trial in the case (trials don't happen that fast. the case was only filed in august 2008. if the court had not dismissed the case, the trial would have been some time around mid-2009)
i am sorry you think i am "pompous" "overbearing" and have a "punk moniker". i'm not trying to talk down to anyone. but i am pointing out that you are wrong and that this entire "controversy" has become a bit of a joke for most of the world.
"Anyway you are welcomed to post the dismissal charges hear."
i can't. it's a pdf. you can only access it online if you are a registered efiler with the court. as an efiler, i can download it to my hard drive. but that doesn't mean i can put it in the comments here.
#26 upyernoz 30-Oct-2008
by the way, i just went back to the online docket for the case and noticed that berg is appealing the dismissal. the appeal was filed today.
not that there's any surprise that he did. i believe berg also appealed when his lawsuit claiming that president bush was behind 9/11 was thrown out last year. berg appeals everything.
but if, as kevin seems to be claiming, berg actually won a JNOV motion, it raises the question of what exactly berg is appealing?
not that there's any surprise that he did. i believe berg also appealed when his lawsuit claiming that president bush was behind 9/11 was thrown out last year. berg appeals everything.
but if, as kevin seems to be claiming, berg actually won a JNOV motion, it raises the question of what exactly berg is appealing?
#27 Kevin True 30-Oct-2008
FYI: From other reports the case was whatevered not because it is baseless but because Berg has to prove the harm it will do to him with an appeal.
#28 upyernoz 30-Oct-2008
wow, that's almost right. the case was dismissed for lack of standing. "standing" just means that you have to be the right person to file the lawsuit (so, for example, if kevin and dmartyr entered into a contract, and then dmartyr failed to abide by that contract, i would not have standing to see for breach of contract, because i wasn't a party to the agreement. kevin would be the only one with standing)
anyway, there are different ways to get standing to sue. one of those ways, the most common one, is when you can show you were harmed by another person's actions. usually that means financial harm, but not always. one of the things that berg argued (and the court rejected as "frivolous") was that he would be harmed if obama because president simply because berg is an american. the problem is that the supreme court has been rejected "citizenship standing" over the past two years.
anyway, i'm impressed that you kind of got something right here kevin! that's still doesn't explain why you thought a JNOV was somehow relevant, or your earliest statement that the lawsuit "wasn't dismissed". now you seem to be saying it was dismissed because berg couldn't prove harm. i guess everyone's allowed to flip-flop now and then.
anyway, there are different ways to get standing to sue. one of those ways, the most common one, is when you can show you were harmed by another person's actions. usually that means financial harm, but not always. one of the things that berg argued (and the court rejected as "frivolous") was that he would be harmed if obama because president simply because berg is an american. the problem is that the supreme court has been rejected "citizenship standing" over the past two years.
anyway, i'm impressed that you kind of got something right here kevin! that's still doesn't explain why you thought a JNOV was somehow relevant, or your earliest statement that the lawsuit "wasn't dismissed". now you seem to be saying it was dismissed because berg couldn't prove harm. i guess everyone's allowed to flip-flop now and then.
#29 Kevin True 30-Oct-2008
Is this Mrs Obama? you were going to work on the punkness and pompous overbearingness remember or was that just an empty campaign promise. It an
open matter with an appeal the judges handling is questionable and confused,
it's not my flip flop, know it all.
open matter with an appeal the judges handling is questionable and confused,
it's not my flip flop, know it all.
#30 upyernoz 30-Oct-2008
wow, that made no sense at all. this bit pretty much sums it up:
"It an open matter with an appeal the judges handling is questionable and confused..."
that comment sure is.
"It an open matter with an appeal the judges handling is questionable and confused..."
that comment sure is.
#31 Freelance Minion 08-Dec-2008
psst...
(whisper) I don't think the quote was misconstrued. I think the quote was totally invented.
(whisper) I don't think the quote was misconstrued. I think the quote was totally invented.
"There is not law that will stop him from being president" obviously means that there are no legal bars to his election - that he meets all the legal qualifications.
"All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face "
This doesnt sound right. No American would phrase the sentence that way. Sounds phony to me.
You think people are this stupid?