Simply, I've read the "complaint," and the motions/memoranda & order, dismissing the case. Before going any further - have you read any of these?
Once 18 he was required to take an oath of allegiance. He never did!! Get your facts right New evidence shouts cover-up http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/
Im no lawyer, if what your referring to isnt in that document then, no i haven't read it. Feel free to enlighten me. As if i had to ask.
Simply, it's very simple - there are three essential documents in this case, as in any case. The Complaint at Law, the Motion to Dismiss, and the Memorandum & Order, which is the judge's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. If you haven't at least read all three, then you're posting "this case is far from over" has no merit, because you don't understand what has actually taken place. It may be what you would wish, but it is a non-position. In a nutshell, when evaluating a motion to dismiss, a judge must presume the Plaintiff's allegations on substance are true, and rule on other considerations. In other words, the cards are stacked against the MTD. She nevertheless ruled in favor of the dismissal motion, because the plaintiff simply has no standing to bring suit - and it won't matter which jurisdiction he attempts. More later - taking the lad to school. I'd suggest you read all 3 docs, and come back.
Ok, is this not why we have an appellate system? Believe it or not, im not much on conspiracy theories, but seems like there may be a cover-up in the works, See the link below. http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/
Simply, yes, it's why we have an appellate system. As I said, I did see in my experience one such frivolous claim reach to the Supreme Court, before they simply laughed and it simply died, without any action. What I don't think you understand is again how a motion track works; a complaint is filed, and a motion to dismiss is filed in response (then a host of response and reply briefs are filed relative to the motion to dismiss). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, as the judge has done - and please understand this - a judge rules as if the substantive allegations are true. In other words, as if Obama is not a citizen of the United States. Or an alien, or any other allegation one might want to raise in a frivolous claim. In the court's words, And it doesn't matter, from a legal standpoint. All that matters is whether the plaintiff has standing to raise a claim. He doesn't. He wasn't "hurt," legally speaking. And the Court relies on the Supreme Court's jurisdictional ruling on "Standing," made to specifically clarify the issue: Specifically, the court rightly relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), a Supreme Court case, that applies. There, the Supreme Court ruled: If it isn't clear, what this means is the thing will go nowhere. It doesn't change the higher he attempts to climb in the appellate system, with more and more whacked out frivolities tacked onto his garbage brief (and it is truly garbage, on the merits, his lack of standing notwithstanding - a completely frivolous claim, i.e., seeking money for billable hours spent raising this complaint, because...because...other defendants have damaged Berg by failing to stop Obama from running..." ). Anyway, if it isn't clear to you, you'll have to continue to call "cover up" and all kinds of other things that simply don't apply. The case is dead, from what I can discern in the appellate motion track.
I do call cover-up, but only because the evidence exists to do so. North, i may have asked you before, im not sure, If you dont mind me asking, who are you voting for?
The larger problem is the far right did not do enough to say no to the over spending by the far left in order to get their own agenda pushed through at times. The larger problem has been an effort to continually compromise on both sides of the isle. Compromise is not always the best solution to a problem. Often times here is a right way and a wrong way, and no in between. I'd like to see one side run everything for a while so we can all see the difference and "change" that will be made. Unfortunately if it is the far left's way its going to be disastrous. We need a President that will ignore views that are wrong and do what is right. Not one that will pander, placate and otherwise cave in order to get part of what they believe is right. You can reach across the isle without compromising what is right for the country. Thank you!
Simply, you've missed the point entirely. Do you understand what it means when I say the court must rule on the basis of the allegations being true, but concludes by dismissing the claim? To try to explain it another way, your claim is presumed true. Obama is another species. And it doesn't matter - there is no legal standing to raise a claim. It will go nowhere but to oblivion.
Jimmy Carter all over again is all I can say. Carter's 80-82 recession was the most servere economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Because I've already said it many times: You continue to argue the merits of the substantive allegations, which even if true (they're not - but it doesn't matter), the case falls, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on like cases; and the lower level federal court has ensured it has covered this by inclusion of Lujan, a benchmark Supreme Court ruling. The same thing obtained in Hollander, when McCain's candidacy was challenged on similar grounds - and that was a case where a plaintiff could reasonably argue participle, concrete, individualized injury, something necessary to raise a valid claim for relief (which is what a Complaint is). No such thing in this Berg claim even reaches this threshold. It doesn't appear you understand this, and I can't say it any more ways, or any more times, than I already have. The way the law works, this cannot go anywhere, from my understanding. Anyway, Berg is a complete asshole, and a loon, a Hillary Clinton supporter reaching for whatever may overturn the will of the American people, filing a completely spurious claim for injunctive relief - in other words, hold the election in abeyance until his "claim" wends its way through the appellate system. In other words, hold the republic hostage to his puny mind and disgruntlement. We've been here before.
Agreed. Obama does not have the experience. He a freshman Senator that has more experience campaigning than running anything. The US needs another Eisenhower.
IKE VP was also a great President. He opened the door to China and cut a deal with Egypt setting the stage for the US to win the cold war.
Thank God AC is not here anymore. I can only imagine he is trolling this thread with his proxy enabled Nixon search filters on. EEk...