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.
What law school did you attend Gulag U, because the above quoted concept of juripurdence isn't vaguely connected to anything that we in the United States recognize.
Hopefully this will stop all these ridiculous posts about this stupid kooky lawsuit.
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.
I read the article and it's about Berg's "standing" to make these accusations. It dosen't deal with the accusations themselves. They could be true or not, but Berg is not in the legal position to being a lawsuit.
I read the article and it's about Berg's "standing" to make these accusations. It dosen't deal with the accusations themselves. They could be true or not, but Berg is not in the legal position to being a lawsuit.
Good synopsis, which begs the question, if Berg isnt qualified to bring the question, then who is..
I never stated that Obama did not file the motion in time, I stated the judge did not dismiss the case in time, meaning that by the court of law, that 20th day, if not dismissed, papers from the defendant need to be filed to defend. Motion to dismiss is NOT A DEFENSE..
In the motion to dismiss they stated that the charges were false. That qualifies as a denial. Technically, in a civil case you don't have to actually present any evidence until you are in court. You can wait to give a copy of your evidence you intend to present to the other side on the day of the actual hearing if you so choose. All you have to do is file an answer within the time limit. Even if you don't file an answer there is still an hearing that is scheduled and no judge can grant a default judgement until the time of the hearing. If there was no hearing there was no legal grounds to grant any default judgement. The court being backed up is not grounds to deny due process of law to those being sued. Berg is stark raving mad and is grasping at straws. Perhaps if the people sending him money sent that cash to McCain instead he might not be losing so badly. The lawsuit was thrown out because it's ridiculous. Any similar lawsuits will also be thrown out. I strongly suspect some severe fines for these idiots filing these suits. In light of the economic strain on our country I wouldn't be surprised to see them get disbarred as well. One can only hope...
Good synopsis, which begs the question, if Berg isnt qualified to bring the question, then who is..
From many of your posts, it sounds as if you think you have expertise in legal matters because you have gotten enforceable judgments against people in some cases; you do know that there are rules to be followed. So that you can properly analyze and argue about this case, you have to understand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as those are the rules that apply.
Here's a link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You can read and learn the FRCP, and then make your arguments based on the applicable rules, rather than guessing based on your experience in local or state courts.
default judgment n. if a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to a complaint in the time set by law (usually 30 days), then the plaintiff (suer) can request that the default (failure) be entered into the court record by the clerk, which gives the plaintiff the right to get a default judgment. If the complaint was for a specific amount of money owed on a note, other money due, or a specific contract price (or if the amount due is easy to calculate) then the clerk of the court can enter a default judgment. If proof of damages or other relief is necessary, a hearing will be held in which the judge determines terms of the default judgment. In either case the defendant cannot speak for himself/herself. A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due can request that the default be set aside, but must show a legitimate excuse and a good defense to the lawsuit.
From your original post:
Originally Posted by pghquest
It'll be appealed Monday morning to a higher court. The judge is wrong simply based upon ONE fact, in both civil and criminal court, failure to defend oneself is an admission of guilt.
Please note your two errors that conflict with your link; "both civil and criminal court" and the word "defend." As your link points out, this is regarding tort law (civil suits) not criminal, and the second point is your definition of defend. There is no requirement in either civil or criminal court for the defendant to mount a defense. A defendant can sit through a criminal or civil proceeding like a bump on a log and win their case if the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of wrong doing.
In this case Obama, did in fact respond, pointing out that Mr. Berg had no standing to bring this suit. The Judge agreed, and will be upheld in any subsequent appeal.
Ask the number of guys paying life long child support for failure to respond.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. It's atrocious.
default judgment n. if a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to a complaint in the time set by law (usually 30 days), then the plaintiff (suer) can request that the default (failure) be entered into the court record by the clerk, which gives the plaintiff the right to get a default judgment. If the complaint was for a specific amount of money owed on a note, other money due, or a specific contract price (or if the amount due is easy to calculate) then the clerk of the court can enter a default judgment. If proof of damages or other relief is necessary, a hearing will be held in which the judge determines terms of the default judgment. In either case the defendant cannot speak for himself/herself. A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due can request that the default be set aside, but must show a legitimate excuse and a good defense to the lawsuit.
Where in here does it say "failure to defend oneself is an admission of guilt?"
And the defendant in this case DID show up, through his lawyers.
Berg's suit went down the same drain as Hollander v. McCain. It was a foregone conclusion. But some on the right are so taken by imagination that they aren't at all impressed by reality. This is how we got into this entire eight-year mess to begin with...
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.
