Fed Judge Throws Out Berg v. Obama Lawsuit? Or did he?

Whats the story here? Is Obama still running or not, these are to differant news sources that say two completly differant things..

Is it possible that Obamas grandmother is a cover story for this maybe, i dunno.. What do you think?


Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot

A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot. Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president. He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.

www.philly.com...


Obama’s Campaign Ends?

After reviewing evidence presented by Attorney Philip Berg, US District Court Judge Honorable R. Barry Surrick has ruled that Barack Hussein Obama was not a "natural born" or "naturalized" citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. Judge Surrick then ordered the Democratic National Committee to cease all campaign activity on behalf of their candidate for President. He further ordered Obama be removed from all election ballots. Before jumping to conclusions, the civil action brief of Attorney Berg begins by identifying himself as a life-long Democrat who is proud of his party. It cannot be said that Berg is a right-wing zealot grasping at any accusation to prevent the oppositional party from being elected. No, Berg is here fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.

xeniagazette.1upmonitor.com...


[edit on 22/06/2008 by Truther]

So which is the truth??





..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link


[edit on 25-10-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Fromabove


Thats what im saying, im not sure. Have you heard of these news sources before?

Wonderfull. now US citizens have no standing to question a public servants qualifications for office. This judge needs to be impeached and disbarred. Another example of the rights of ordinary folks to redress their government reduced to nothing!

Zindo

These are both local new papers in Pennsylvania. They have beenon top of this question and suit for a few months.
Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Wonderfull. now US citizens have no standing to question a public servants qualifications for office. This judge needs to be impeached and disbarred. Another example of the rights of ordinary folks to redress their government reduced to nothing!

Zindo

Read the other news source, it says he was barred from running now.. Whats the story here.

Looks like one was pro-Obama and the other not??? I haven't been able to find the actual document posted yet but it will be by Monday I bet!

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
These are both local new papers in Pennsylvania. They have beenon top of this question and suit for a few months.
Zindo

This is very odd. I wouldn't be surprised if these were two competing, biased internet sources. However, in this case we're looking at what would appear to be two reliable sources. Very odd.

FYI, The Xenia Gazette is out of Xenia, OH.

Have you noticed the the story has been wiped from the page of the one that said he has been barred..



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link


[edit on 25-10-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick

from: www.americasright.com...

It seems it was thrown out. There's a fairly in-depth rundown at that link. Nice catch though! You certainly stirred my waters

Alright.

Are you ready for a poop storm.

Here is the pdf of the judges decision.

He has ruled AGAINST Obama and the DnC

justia.com




[edit on 10/25/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Oh God what a mess, where do we go from here to get a black and white answer?




..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link


[edit on 25-10-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

I just found something very odd in one of the motions. I've seen several people post that this verification has already been taken care of by the elections commission and that all of these lawsuits are a complete waste of time. If that's the case, why did they submit the following:

"The Commission should be dismissed as a party to this case because it has no oversight over the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause."

If the Federal Election Commission isn't checking the legality of candidates...who is?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, ::
Plaintiff :
vs. :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, ::
Defendants :
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.
Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the
Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P.
56(c) is GRANTED. This Court Declares Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein
Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry
Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen and is ineligible to
run for and/or serve as President of the United States. The Democratic National
Committee is hereby enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the
Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and both the Democratic National
Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency. It is an ORDER of this Court that Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.

BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 27
Dockets.Justia.com

It is further ORDER of this Court; Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $48,300.00,
representing all fees and costs associated with this suit to date.

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________
Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
United States District Court Judge
For the Eastern District of PA

Let's back up a little as we're not lawyers and before we start throwing poop at each other.

This MAY be a document submitted by the plaintiff for the judge to either sign or toss out.

Does anyone know any members who are lawyers?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I've seen that PDF, and if you follow the history of the case on Justia, it's very clear that what you're seeing is a typical request for a judgement. It's NOT a judgement unless signed by the Judge and court seal applied.

Keep in mind that what we are seeing on the justia site are the docs submitted by the lawyers in the case...not the judge's decisions. It is common practice for the submitting lawyer to write out a judgement, as we see here, so that the judge can just sign the judgement if that's the way he rules. The presence of this document on justia does not mean that the judge ruled that way.

I don't think the judge has ruled yet. There are no updates on Berg's site (www.obamacrimes.com) other than a notice that documents were submitted on thursday...so I don't think anything has happened.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Alright.

Are you ready for a poop storm.

Here is the pdf of the judges decision.

He has ruled AGAINST Obama and the DnC

justia.com




[edit on 10/25/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Bloody hell! does this mean he cant run? If this is the case there will be mass riots that will make the los angelas riots look like a picnic..

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So essentially if the motion were to be granted, then that is the position of the court?

I for one would love to see this story get some light today. I know it is Saturday and the people of the United States are desperate for change, but they need to actually see what makes up these candidates.

This is all getting out of hand, we are this close to the election and we still do not really know all that much about Senator Obama.

People love him though. Why? Because they said so, that's why. No valid reasoning or policies have been laid out by his supporters or his staff.

& No I am not voting for McCain either, but I will be voting as I love to exercise my rights here in America.