The Berg lawsuit against Obama was dismissed as frivolous last night – when will the kooks here realize that?
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.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.
He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.
They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.
Surrick agreed.
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."
For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.)
Berg could not be reached for comment last night.
Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.
Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.
The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.
Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4. *
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html
March 30th, 2010 - 08:44
its all over but the crying now
March 30th, 2010 - 09:11
Many here love frivolous and vague. They base their hatred on it.
March 30th, 2010 - 09:56
they don’t know how the legal system works and they love conspiracy theories.
there’s no hope.
March 30th, 2010 - 10:54
Thanks for the link. It was clear to me that it was frivolous.
People who shun facts should have no problem ignoring this one, too.
March 30th, 2010 - 11:22
I see you have factcheck listed, if they vouch for it, then it is okay by me.
March 30th, 2010 - 11:54
Thank you, now perhaps will we see fewer posts on Y/A Answers regarding this subject.
March 30th, 2010 - 12:11
Have you never noticed that fact or truth play no part in republican beliefs?
I’m sure there will still be questions appearing that will still question where Obama was born and state he is not a citizen.
March 30th, 2010 - 12:13
This ruling confirms what most reasonable people all ready knew: that Berg is a kook. I’m not a bit surprised that the case was thrown out.
I doubt that the ruling will have any effect whatsoever on the kooks here on Y!A though. To them, each defeat only provides more proof of the conspiracy.
March 30th, 2010 - 12:52
This decision should be placed before the US Supreme Court for immediate consideration. Nothing the Supreme court has before it can be more important than this one issue !
March 30th, 2010 - 13:45
Wonder how much of his campaign money that cost him.
March 30th, 2010 - 14:06
there must have been four or five guys running multiple accounts here yesterday constantly posting on this very case. i just noticed two posted within the last few minutes.
it must be understood that the death throes of anything is liable to be pitiful and obscene; a drowning man is known to pull any and all under with him.
these posters are the sad ugly underbelly of the neocons, an embarrassment to themselves and their party.
March 30th, 2010 - 14:07
I’m glad to see you called a Clinton supporter a kook.
I simply cannot fathom why it is that any taxpayer has legal standing to bring a constitutional challenge to an alleged violation of the Establishment Clause, but somebody has to demonstrate that they are harmed by an allegedly unqualified candidacy. Who WOULD have standing to bring that kind of challenge?
March 30th, 2010 - 14:42
Whether they realize it or not is hardly the issue.
when will they ADMIT it??
Never!!
March 30th, 2010 - 14:55
AMAZING THAT REPUBLICANS LOVE TO DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS
HOW TRULY UN AMERICAN OF THEM.
CONSIDERING THAT OBAMA’S MOTHER WAS A US CITIZEN
HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE AN ISSUE?
March 30th, 2010 - 15:35
Thank you. No they will not stop. They have never let the truth get in their way before, why stop now.
March 30th, 2010 - 16:31
SMACK!!!
I guess he wasn’t on the grassy knoll
March 30th, 2010 - 17:21
Most likely is that you will see them saying that the judge ruled in Obama’s favor because he was a Clinton appointee. Who of course was confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate, but that won’t keep them from using any imaginary reason to continue to believe in Berg’s fantasy.