For Those Curious About The Decision Render in Obama vs Berg. (9/11, president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, basically Berge has to prove that Obama's not producing birth documents is harmful to the citizenry? That's what I'm getting from this. They are not saying Obama had the documents to start with.
So, basically Berge has to prove that Obama's not producing birth documents is harmful to the citizenry? That's what I'm getting from this. They are not saying Obama had the documents to start with.
No, what the judge is saying is both more and less simple than that.
Judge Surrick is saying that Atty. Berg has no standing to sue. That the hurt is not specific to him, even if one grants every point of fact that Berg has made (which is not granted other than for the sake of examining whether or not to dismiss the case).
There is a bit of explanation of the whole thing at http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/, but I'll note its treatment of the "standing' issue is pretty weak, compared to the rest of the piece.
Standing, basically, means "who has a right to bring this action?"
If you were driving along and watched car A hit car B, you could not sue on behalf of car B, even though you KNOW it happened. It did not happen to you.
Neither could you sue Car A on behalf of yourself and every other car that had to wait for the accident to be cleared. It is something that happened to all of you, not to just you. The hurt has to be to you. Finally, the 'repair' has to be both feasible and (considered) reasonable. For you to demand your time back is not going to work. Your claim of loss is pretty hard to match. And there is no law that seems to grant that there is recoverable loss, on a federal court level.
Therefore, you would be deemed to have no standing, and therefore the court would have no jurisdiction over the case - so, nothing gets even to the point of a hearing on the facts.
No, what the judge is saying is both more and less simple than that.
Judge Surrick is saying that Atty. Berg has no standing to sue. That the hurt is not specific to him, even if one grants every point of fact that Berg has made (which is not granted other than for the sake of examining whether or not to dismiss the case).
There is a bit of explanation of the whole thing at http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/, but I'll note its treatment of the "standing' issue is pretty weak, compared to the rest of the piece.
Standing, basically, means "who has a right to bring this action?"
If you were driving along and watched car A hit car B, you could not sue on behalf of car B, even though you KNOW it happened. It did not happen to you.
Neither could you sue Car A on behalf of yourself and every other car that had to wait for the accident to be cleared. It is something that happened to all of you, not to just you. The hurt has to be to you. Finally, the 'repair' has to be both feasible and (considered) reasonable. For you to demand your time back is not going to work. Your claim of loss is pretty hard to match. And there is no law that seems to grant that there is recoverable loss, on a federal court level.
Therefore, you would be deemed to have no standing, and therefore the court would have no jurisdiction over the case - so, nothing gets even to the point of a hearing on the facts.
Hope this helps!
So who in the hell would have to sue to get this proven? What needs to be filed to get to the bottom of this? Please no Obama supporters respond to this (you people know what I mean). It's a simple question. If Berg wants to continue this, what would he need to file.
Because this seems a bit ridiculous. If a citizen ISN'T harmed by an inelligeble President, who is and why is it in there?
No, what the judge is saying is both more and less simple than that.
Judge Surrick is saying that Atty. Berg has no standing to sue. That the hurt is not specific to him, even if one grants every point of fact that Berg has made (which is not granted other than for the sake of examining whether or not to dismiss the case).
There is a bit of explanation of the whole thing at http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/, but I'll note its treatment of the "standing' issue is pretty weak, compared to the rest of the piece.
Standing, basically, means "who has a right to bring this action?"
If you were driving along and watched car A hit car B, you could not sue on behalf of car B, even though you KNOW it happened. It did not happen to you.
Neither could you sue Car A on behalf of yourself and every other car that had to wait for the accident to be cleared. It is something that happened to all of you, not to just you. The hurt has to be to you. Finally, the 'repair' has to be both feasible and (considered) reasonable. For you to demand your time back is not going to work. Your claim of loss is pretty hard to match. And there is no law that seems to grant that there is recoverable loss, on a federal court level.
Therefore, you would be deemed to have no standing, and therefore the court would have no jurisdiction over the case - so, nothing gets even to the point of a hearing on the facts.
Hope this helps!
So then the question of does he have an original Hawaii birth certificate wasn't answered, just that the judge felt Berg wasn't entitled to sue?
The American people should sue Berg for a colossal waste of time and malicious intent to sway an election with more BS. It's not the first time he's pulled a stunt like this-- he filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush for 9/11. Somebody needs to put a muzzle on this guy.
Actually no "Madness" has been settled because it doesn't answer ANY questions from what I can tell.
The answer is that any fools who seriously think Obama made it this far without being eligible are just that.....FOOLS!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Check out nutcase Berg's sources of information!
