It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 16
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Blacks use the term "African-american" but people from Africa don't. It's an American issue because the term Negro is not liked any more, but it was in the 60"s. Note the Wiki site I referenced above.




posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by shug7272
 


McCain's father was an Navel officer at the time and was in the service of this country stationed in Panama when McCain was born. Its a forgone conclusion that a suit about his citizenship would be thrown out. Show me where any of Obamas parents where US service personel and I'll retract my post. Otherwise I suggest you read the law, children of active service personel stationed in the world are automaticaly citizens no matter where they are born.

Zindo

[edit on 10/26/2008 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 



Isn't it amazing that he did this in 2007, long before the primaries. Hmmm... something fishy here.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by davion
 



Isn't it amazing that he did this in 2007, long before the primaries. Hmmm... something fishy here.


Hmmmmm. Doesn't matter, the document holds up in court.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


First off, the classification of people according to race is a European construct. A Kenyan would refer to himself or herself as Kenyan without regard to race.

Given choices on most forms at the time, "Negro" was an option, not African. But since there was opportunity to make the racial distinction for oneself, Obama, Sr. declared that he was African, and that is all there is to it.

No Blacks ever liked the term, because the term "'n-word'" is derived from "negro", both refer to the color black, and so one is hardly better than the other. The difference is that "'n-word'" was considered more of a slur than "Negro" was. But "Negro" was still considered to be a slur even though it was accepted.

So you can pretend that you would know what an educated Kenyan would call himself during the 60s if you like, but I guarantee you that Obama, Sr., being from British colonized Kenya, and being aware of other European colonies in Africa, hated the term "Negro" with a passion. That's why he chose to put his race down as African. And eventually American Blacks declared themselves as being African Americans. Neither people enjoyed being referred to by the color of their skin for the purpose of race classification.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


What do you mean the judge ruled against Obama?

You're talking nonsense.



Did you read the original case disposition? The Presiding Judge found the Defendant liable in the suit, and ordered restitution to be paid to the Plaintiff, along with an order for Senator Obama to be stricken from the Ballot. He did a full 180 however and completely reneged on his OWN ruling 48 Hours later. In the original ruling the Evidence was found to be sufficient, and the request simple enough, that Senator Obama, his Campaign, and the DNC had no excuse for Delaying the Proceedings since August. In the reversal however, the ruling states that the Plaintiff has no standing to bring forth such a Summary Case in the first place, and only Congress can decide the merits of such.

This however goes against the VERY Principle of Checks-and-Balances, which DOES provide the Judicial System as a forum for Citizens to bring forth Constitutional "issues".

He is a Clinton appointed Judicial Official, which obviously presents him with the facet of being open for manipulation by the Defendant (If for some weird reason the Clinton's actually sided with Senator Obama). A simple "reminder" of who gave him his job, and who will take it away, is all that was necessary for this Judge to completely cave.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Did you read the original case disposition? The Presiding Judge found the Defendant liable in the suit, and ordered restitution to be paid to the Plaintiff, along with an order for Senator Obama to be stricken from the Ballot. He did a full 180 however and completely reneged on his OWN ruling 48 Hours later. In the original ruling the Evidence was found to be sufficient, and the request simple enough, that Senator Obama, his Campaign, and the DNC had no excuse for Delaying the Proceedings since August. In the reversal however, the ruling states that the Plaintiff has no standing to bring forth such a Summary Case in the first place, and only Congress can decide the merits of such.

This however goes against the VERY Principle of Checks-and-Balances, which DOES provide the Judicial System as a forum for Citizens to bring forth Constitutional "issues".

He is a Clinton appointed Judicial Official, which obviously presents him with the facet of being open for manipulation by the Defendant (If for some weird reason the Clinton's actually sided with Senator Obama). A simple "reminder" of who gave him his job, and who will take it away, is all that was necessary for this Judge to completely cave.



You're talking about filing 27, which according to the website, if you read it, was filed by Berg

MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PHILIP J. BERG.Brief in support thereof and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(BERG, PHILIP)

Summary Judgment:

A final decision by a judge that resolves a lawsuit in favor of one of the parties. A motion for summary judgment is made after discovery is completed but before the case goes to trial. The party making the motion marshals all the evidence in its favor, compares it to the other side's evidence, and argues that a reasonable jury looking at the same evidence could only decide the case one way--for the moving party. If the judge agrees, then a trial would be unnecessary and the judge enters judgment for the moving party.

Definition source

There's nothing that shows that the judge agreed to the summary judgment Berg submitted.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by davion
 


Blacks use the term "African-american" but people from Africa don't. It's an American issue because the term Negro is not liked any more, but it was in the 60"s. Note the Wiki site I referenced above.




Most black folks do not care either way, in regards to Black-American or African-American. Either one is cool as long as you feel comfortable saying it.

As for the term "Negro", that was Politically correct into the 1980's. It was not until the 1990's that "Negro" truly became taboo. Some Old Timers still use the word, even the ones who are not Racist. Of course you still use the term if you speak Spanish.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by davion


There's nothing that shows that the judge agreed to the summary judgment Berg submitted.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by davion]




It was a Court issued Order, albeit an unsigned one. Not to mention that the Evidentiary Findings in the original Order have NO relation to the Dismissal Disposition. The Judge attempted to alter his finding, changing the Dismissal basis to a Judgement that the Plaintiff was not of merit to challenge the Defendant (Despite the fact he is a former PA Attorney General), while completely ignoring the Evidence.

He also completely ignored the basis for the Checks-and-Balances of the Judicial Branch of Government, which IS by fact to allow Citizens the ability to process such claims in regards to Constitutional Law and its Application. In other words, this Judge had a "Change of Heart" through some revelation, which is based upon an extremely weak and misconstrued argument.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
It was a Court issued Order, albeit an unsigned one.


How does a "court issued order" that is unsigned have merit in anything?

Berg filed a summary judgment, which, if the judge agreed with him, he'd have to sign. He didn't sign it so he didn't agree to it.

I don't understand what's so hard to grasp here.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
And what evidence? He hasn't come out with any evidence, he hasn't shown any evidence. He has a couple of citations from Wikipedia and some news articles and that's it.

He doesn't have any standing because he can't prove that he was injured, because he doesn't have any evidence. I'd read what Surrick had to say but apparently Berg wants to leave us in the dark because the PDF he has up on his website is the worst quality I've ever seen.

He probably doesn't want people to read what Surrick has to say and I doubt we'll have see a cleaner copy of it on his website.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Seriously now. Why does anyone really think that there is anything to this at all??????

How is it that you think that no one in a position of power cares enough to look into this for real? Just Berg? It has been covered, he is eligible. McCain is going to steal the election anyway so who cares.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
This case was thrown out citing Berg had no merit to file.
From reading over it, it's crap anyway. For starters you do not lose citizenship if you also become a citizen somewhere else-it's rather quite common.

Also, his Mother is American, I know many cases where that was enough to acquire naturalized status. This is presuming there was some proof he was in fact not born on U.S. soil.

This article-like the lawsuit isn't anything but FUD.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
The thing is though that according to Berg he does have evidence: He supposedly has Obama's grandmother on tape stating that she was in the Mombasa Kenya hospital room when Obama was born.

Berg was on the Michael Savage show a few nights ago, talking all about this case. Link to the radio show:

www.talkradionetwork.com... BlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzA0JnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT0xMA==

The judge's ruling is baffling. Nope, no harm done at all to the people or the Constitution. :shk:
This country deserves what it gets. I am starting to hate it for all it stands for. Because it damn sure isn't the same anymore as it used to be. And now it is becoming obvious that it will never be until bloodshed is had again on a major scale. Countryjacked.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I am sorry but first of all, if there was any real evidence, why not release it?

Second of all, I listen to Savage...for fun. The same way that I listen to Coast to Coast or Alex Jones. You can only believe about 30% of anything collectively from that bunch.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Berg has a tape that supposedly features the grandmother saying that Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya. However the tape has not been translated yet. Nor is it under sworn affidavit. So -- How does Berg know that what he claims actually exists on the tape? Berg doesn't know!

For all Berg knows, the tape could feature the grandmother talking about the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, SENIOR!

Berg is running a public campaign in order to support his legal actions against Obama. That's why he's accepting donations on his Web site. Also, Berg likes being a self-styled defender of the Constitution. He wants to be a hero. He enjoys the fame. And therefore power over the perception of the masses.

The judge upheld the law. Respect him for that. He took two months to hand down a ruling. That means he worked long and hard to reach a ruling favorable to Berg. However, under the law he couldn't. Respect the judge, don't disrespect him because he upheld the law, rather than bowed to public pressure.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


The court didn't issue any orders that you allege!!! You've been blinded by Berg's PROPOSED ORDERS to the court that he plastered on his Web site, which then were plastered all over the Internet as if they represented rulings in Berg's favor.

Berg didn't do the uninformed public any service by explaining that his PROPOSED ORDERS did not represent judgments by the judge presiding over the case.

PROPOSED ORDERS only represent requests to the court by the plaintiff and defendant of how either or both wish litigation to proceed. That's it. The plaintiff and defendant write the PROPOSED ORDERS themselves for convenience and a courtesy to the judge and court, but the judge and court is not limited to them.

If a PROPOSED ORDER isn't signed and dated by the judge, the PROPOSED ORDER is worth about as much as the paper that hangs on the wall next to your toilet!

Here you will find all of the PROPOSED ORDERS that were submitted to the court by both the plaintiff and defense. At present the final judgment of the case is not online, but the rest of the filings are. In fact the judge denied one of Berg's PROPOSED ORDERS early in the proceedings. As you will notice the filing with the gavel next to it. All of the other filings to not have a gavel, which means that no ruling has ever been made on them. Check back some time tomorrow when the final ruling should be available .

Stop spreading misinformation! And get in Berg's face for misleading you!



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


Show me a signed ruling by the judge!

You will not be able to do that, because there never was a signed ruling by the judge for what you claim.

What you are talking about is being bamboozled by Berg.

I already addressed your being mislead at Berg's pleasure in another post where I replied to you on the same issue.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by davion
 


Blacks use the term "African-american" but people from Africa don't. It's an American issue because the term Negro is not liked any more, but it was in the 60"s. Note the Wiki site I referenced above.



I am pretty sure that a big reason they do not use "african american" in africa is because they are african, not american.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join