Posts
Barack Obama’s actual birth certificate!
* Thanks to Tim Blair
Click on image to enlarge!
From Atlas:
JUDGE DISMISSES BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT: ANYBODY GOT STANDING?
Philip Berg’s lawsuit has been dismissed by Clinton appointed Judge Surrick on the grounds that Berg lacked standing.
The analysis of the COLB presented on Obama’s fight the smears website should have been the basis of Berg’s lawsuit because it presents “reasonable suspicion”. Berg’s conjecture or speculation is irrelevant. If you remember, I was not pleased that is was Berg when he filed. The case must be made on evidence not speculation.
Prosecutor and reader John Jay remarked in the comments back in July:
Techdude is not running for President of the United States. His analysis is not subject to a standard of “proof beyond a reasonable” doubt.
Barrack Hussein Obama is running for President of the United States, and he has to meet and prove establish that he meets certain requirements to do so, e.g., age and citizenship. He has proofs of constitutional dimension in that regard, as must meet statutory and regulatory standards in filing for his candidacy, and proving his citizen ship and age.
He has political “proofs” of honesty and integrity as well.
The filing and.or flaunting of phonied up documents satisfy none of the proof requirements he faces, and would not in court.
This is a sad day for America. I cannot believe we are going to yawn and just take this
LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA DISMISSED BY PHILADELPHIA JUDGE America’s Right (hat tip peach)
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.
Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.
Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.
A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.
In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.
[....]
Who, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Read it all. But like I said, the analysis presented at Atlas should have been entered into evidence.
So what if I, we were wrong. I would have egg on my face? I don’t care - I was presented with strong evidence. What was worst the that could happen if we were wrong, a bitchslap from the leftards. So what?
Whats the worst that could happen if we were right. Traitor in the White House.
You weigh it. The judge certainly didn’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment