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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Interesting article in a battle ground state and it doesn't appear to have a strong bias either way - PA:

www.thebulletin.us...




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I would still like to know why anyone thinks that this is something that all the other candidates just kind of decided to let go? The people with the most to gain, the most resources to fight, and the most access just let this all go. Why?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I don't honestly understand how someone can believe that he could get a job in the government without going through a background check.

A few anecdotal stories:

When I applied to work at the Sheriff's Office here I had to bring in my birth certificate, drivers license, photo, social security card, high school diploma, college diploma, insurance information, the list goes on. Then they spent about three or four months checking my credit and all my ties and all the previous jobs I had in a background check. Then I went in for a polygraph. That is a COUNTY job.

My friend recently became a chef in Washington DC as a cook at a cafeteria in a government building. He went through several levels of background checks and also had to bring in all his documentation, and that's just to cook for politicians.

I don't understand how someone can believe that a guy that gets on the Senate in Illinois somehow bypassed all of that, years ago before he was running to be President. Did they "know" he was eventually going to run for President so they cleared him?

The reason the main stream media isn't following this is because it's not an issue. The guy was working for the government before he ran for President, no one had any issue with Obama's citizenship until he started running for President.

If you're going to say the HR department for our state and federal government is corrupt enough to admit someone with a forged or fake certificate then wouldn't everyone in the government be suspect? Anyone in the government could have had a fake certificate if HR can let Obama slip by. I don't see anyone outraged about that scenario, though.

If this really was an issue we'd be demanding every politician in government to hand over their birth certificates, especially considering Berg hasn't shown any evidence that can pin Obama as guilty.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


That looks like it was filed by Berg for the judge to sign in case the motion to dismiss was overturned. Notice how it isn't dated or signed by the judge. I believe someone explained this earlier, but basically Berg wrote the judgment that you quoted, which is common practice, but it isn't official unless the judge signs it. Much like this case isn't official and doesn't go to court unless the judge signs it.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by davion
I am talking about Berg, not Obama. Berg hasn't released any of the evidence he supposedly has, he's just alluded to it in his dismissed case. So I'll ask again, why hasn't he dropped all of this evidence into the public for viewing? Does he have something to hide?


If he has evidence BHO is not a natural born citizen, you bet your 4$$ he has something to protect (hide), and the last thing he should do is tip his hand before he is required to in discovery.

This is the way I see it going down:

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl
What I think though is that he sees the issue as a mere technicality, even if it is unconstitutional, because, in his heart of hearts, he has always considered himself an American and it wasn't his fault, if indeed it turns out that he was physically born in Kenya. He had no power over that and he shouldn't be faulted for that.


But of course there is the small issue of campaign fraud, providing forged documents, etc... It would be sick to think any individual could get away with somthing like that.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by truthwarrior7
 


Very good point and I like your style.As I have posted before,I do not have a pony in this race! All I am looking for is truth.I am also looking for any way to halt the "N.W.O."!!!! We need to fight all injustices no matter what.I do not want the powers to be to win this war because we faught one another over petty differences while we missed the "big shift" in change. I am reminded of a Twilight Zone eppisode that comprised of two little aliens who made a few tweaks on the simple things in life such as lawn mowers,cars,blenders that went crazy.The aliens didn't have to do a thing because we went bezerk on each other! The two aliens were ready to deploy the same method street after street! The weapons of mass destruction are us,the terrorists are us,these are historic times;the battle is now!.United we stand devided we fall,it is up to you.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl
Interesting article in a battle ground state and it doesn't appear to have a strong bias either way - PA:

www.thebulletin.us...


Oh it does have a strong bias, it mentions the fact that the scanned copy of the certificate he has presented doesn't have the seal, but the FactCheck.org website, which got to hold it in their hands and take picture of it, shows that there is indeed a seal.

In any invent the document that is on Obama's website and FactCheck.org would be enough to prove that he was born in the United States in court, and that's apparently what was mentioned in their motion for dismissal.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by davion
reply to post by TheRooster
 


That looks like it was filed by Berg for the judge to sign in case the motion to dismiss was overturned. Notice how it isn't dated or signed by the judge. I believe someone explained this earlier, but basically Berg wrote the judgment that you quoted, which is common practice, but it isn't official unless the judge signs it. Much like this case isn't official and doesn't go to court unless the judge signs it.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]


Well, someone posted earlier that because it's not signed does not mean it is not filed, but I don't know. Why would the court allow the plaintiff to prepare a dismissal? There's much I don't understand and the questions keep coming.

[edit on 10/25/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster
If he has evidence BHO is not a natural born citizen, you bet your 4$$ he has something to protect (hide), and the last thing he should do is tip his hand before he is required to in discovery.


Then I'll just apply the logic that many people use when it comes to Obama not presenting his certificate, but for Berg's evidence:

"If Berg doesn't show his evidence that he must not have any"

Considering one of the reasons Berg's case was dismissed was because his case lacked strong evidence, then now would be a good time to show it.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by davion]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Wouldn't it solve the whole issue if Sen Obama's passport was released and verified by the State Dept? Then, either the State Dept issued a passport on a false doc or the DOS could release their copy of the proof of citizenship that caused them to issue a passport..

I still have an issue with the fact that Sen Obama and the DNC never answered the motion, if you and I are sued, we know that not answering a motion to compel or produce means an default judgement.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 

A week ago I would have agreed w/you. unfortunatly I was astounded to find out that the DNC doesn't require proof of anything!Heaven forbid we get hired for a job in this country and what do we have to provide the employer? Well this is the highest office one can hold and he/she dosent have to even submit a resume!



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by davion
Considering one of the reasons Berg's case was dismissed was because his case lacked strong evidence, then now would be a good time to show it.


I would agree with that statement, maybe he intends to now.



Then I'll just apply the logic that many people use when it comes to Obama not presenting his certificate, but for Berg's evidence:


C'mon D, Berg isn't running for POTUS. What takes less effort, producing a vault certificate of live birth, or filing a motion to dismiss? Which one of those two would demonstrate good character and inspire undecided voters?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by beammeup
reply to post by davion
 

A week ago I would have agreed w/you. unfortunatly I was astounded to find out that the DNC doesn't require proof of anything!Heaven forbid we get hired for a job in this country and what do we have to provide the employer? Well this is the highest office one can hold and he/she dosent have to even submit a resume!


I'm not talking about the Presidential bid and the DNC involvement, though.

I'm talking about his state senate job. Even his job as a senator in Congress.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


I don't think that he does have something to hide. He's in a political race, so it's easy to understand why his behavior is guarded. Like John McCain, I think that Obama is merely trying to avoided being judged as being a "natural born citizen". Under the law, term is not defined. And the only time it has been defined is when it was attached to one's race. A person had to be a "free white person" (see image pages 103-104), but that law has since been revoked. Since that time, no definition has been in the law.

Both Obama and McCain filed a Motion to Dismiss. Neither have presented their documents to the court for the purpose of a judge to declare them natural born or not. It's easy to understand that when you know that the term "natural born" is without legal definition. The situation of both Senators presents technical challenges that may not work in their favor as well. So, from the standpoint of an attorney, it is best that they do not show up in court waving documents that might do more harm than good, depending on the judge.

And don't fall for Berg's BS, as if he has the authority to determine whether or not someone is a natural born citizen. As a layman, he could claim that anybody does or does not. But as far as the law is concerned, NOTHING provides him the authority or means. The law only states who shall be nationals, citizens, and naturalized citizens. No law states who shall be natural born citizens. Only the US Constitution lists it as a requirement to be POTUS.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


I was referring to Berg when I said, "What does he have to hide?" since he hasn't shown us any of his evidence yet.

I should go edit that to make it clearer for people haha.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster
C'mon D, Berg isn't running for POTUS. What takes less effort, producing a vault certificate of live birth, or filing a motion to dismiss? Which one of those two would demonstrate good character and inspire undecided voters?



No, but Berg is making a claim that a candidate isn't a United States citizen. I mean, he has a website that apparently, according to him, gets millions of unique hits a day, yet the only thing on his website is the PDF documents that he's filed which only allude to the "evidence" he has.

He apparently has a lot of people believing what he's saying but there's no substance to anything he's said yet. The burden of proof is on him since he's making the claim.

At this point though I'm not holding my breath that we'll see any of this evidence, the people that support his case apparently didn't need it to donate or back him.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


Plaintiffs and defendants are allowed to file PROPOSED ORDERS to the court for the purpose of expressing objection or requesting the court to do something on their behalf. If the judge agrees with the motion, the motion is signed. If the judge disagrees, the motion is denied. The judge is not limited to the courtesy of the plaintiff or the defendant. The judge can a issue a separate motion granting or denying motions presented to the court. PROPOSED ORDERS are just that, proposals that let the judge know how the plaintiff and defendant wishes the case to proceed.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Right. One BIG problem that I have with Berg is that he does not do anything to tell the public what his filings mean. He just presents them as if the judge has ruled in his favor. As a result, even now there are thousands, perhaps millions, of people who think that Berg won his case WEEKS ago. And, of course, Berg knows that.

I don't trust Berg's motives for this case. And I've gone through every bit of evidence, and none of it supports any of Berg's claims. Then on top of that, Berg filed an amended complaint alleging that Obama, the DNC, and FEC have conspired together to obscure Obama's eligibility for POTUS. Well, how does Berg support that claim? He doesn't!

Anyway, Berg didn't need to file an amended complaint in order for me to know that he was implying collusion. Filing the amended complaint just clarified it.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
wow. what's with all the obama aliases?
he seems like a spy or a conman from that alone.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join