pimpdave wrote:
Yeah, I thought they did that already.
No, Obama has never responded or cooperated with the suits. He defaulted on the lawsuit by not responding within 30 days, so basically that means that everything Philip Berg has insinuated is indeed true:
No, until this reaches the Supreme Court and they make a ruling, the matter has not been given due process or been resolved.
As an interesting aside, there have been a number of cases of Bush's administration reaching the Supreme Court and some of his actions being ruled unconstitutional. More will come, I'm sure.
Any challenge to Obama's birth would need to be brought in the district that includes Hawaii, not Pennsylvania.
Still, one thing you said is true. It WILL be resolved by the Supreme court ... either by direct ruling or by refusal to review the evidence.
And yes, a great deal of what Bush has done has already been ruled unconstitutional. In fact, challenging presidents is a "favorite pasttime" of some lawyers.. and a fairly lucrative one, at that.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Any challenge to Obama's birth would need to be brought in the district that includes Hawaii, not Pennsylvania.
Nice catch Player!
I haven't looked too closely at any of this, cause it's just so ridiculous.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
pimpdave wrote:
Yeah, I thought they did that already.
No, Obama has never responded or cooperated with the suits. He defaulted on the lawsuit by not responding within 30 days, so basically that means that everything Philip Berg has insinuated is indeed true:
Sorry, wrong again. A person does not have to respond to a lawsuit that is not properly served.
pimpdave wrote:
Yeah, I thought they did that already.
No, Obama has never responded or cooperated with the suits. He defaulted on the lawsuit by not responding within 30 days, so basically that means that everything Philip Berg has insinuated is indeed true:
Sorry, wrong again. A person does not have to respond to a lawsuit that is not properly served.
You are correct. They should issue a bench warrant and have him dragged before the judge in hand cuffs and shackles for contempt. Now that would be most fitting.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
pimpdave wrote:
Yeah, I thought they did that already.
No, Obama has never responded or cooperated with the suits. He defaulted on the lawsuit by not responding within 30 days, so basically that means that everything Philip Berg has insinuated is indeed true:
Sorry, wrong again. A person does not have to respond to a lawsuit that is not properly served.
You are correct. They should issue a bench warrant and have him dragged before the judge in hand cuffs and shackles for contempt. Now that would be most fitting.
Contempt for ignoring a suit lodged improperly? If anyone is in contempt, it is a judge for lodging this lawsuit he had to know was without grounds and therefore frivolous.
Again, SERIOUS challenges should be answered, but not silliness.
this is a serious challenge. This is the office of the president of the United States. If he is not qualified, then he needs to be removed from the office immediately. Honestly, how can anyone know if this case is frivolous if he won't produce the actual documentation to prove it?
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
mpjh wrote:The judge dismissed the lawsuit on November 4th.
then there is cause for an appeal.
No. There isn't. That's why it was dismissed, because there was no cause in the first place.
No cause = can't get tried a first time, because there's no serious question for the court to consider.
No question for court 1 to consider = No cause for court 2 to consider, nor any considerations of court 1 for court 2 to consider. i.e. no reason for an appeal.
Sorry guys, I know you really really want something dramatic to happen here... but your fruitloop's claims are without merit. Dry your eyes and get over it already.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
mpjh wrote:The judge dismissed the lawsuit on November 4th.
then there is cause for an appeal.
No. There isn't. That's why it was dismissed, because there was no cause in the first place.
No cause = can't get tried a first time, because there's no serious question for the court to consider.
No question for court 1 to consider = No cause for court 2 to consider, nor any considerations of court 1 for court 2 to consider. i.e. no reason for an appeal.
Sorry guys, I know you really really want something dramatic to happen here... but your fruitloop's claims are without merit. Dry your eyes and get over it already.
maybe that is how it works in your country. Here, lower courts will dismiss to prevent their cases from just being overturned in an appeal. A lower court like this has no jurisdiction on this kind of case, but none-the-less, the case has to traverse through the legal system.
By the way, mpjh, do you have a link about the case's dismissal? I would like to find commentary about the case's dismissal.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
Frankly, if you right wing squirrels want to chance this acorn, go ahead, spend the money. It is better than doing something that might be damaging, like beating your wives and girlfriends, or drinking beer until you puke on your pickup truck floor.
mpjh wrote:Frankly, if you right wing squirrels want to chance this acorn, go ahead, spend the money. It is better than doing something that might be damaging, like beating your wives and girlfriends, or drinking beer until you puke on your pickup truck floor.
No link for your information? then its not true and you are talking from your ass... again.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
black elk speaks wrote:lower courts will dismiss to prevent their cases from just being overturned in an appeal.
So you're saying that they'll make no decision, because they're scared that their decision might be overruled... ultimately having no impact, just like they would have if they'd been overruled?
Sense?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
black elk speaks wrote:lower courts will dismiss to prevent their cases from just being overturned in an appeal.
So you're saying that they'll make no decision, because they're scared that their decision might be overruled... ultimately having no impact, just like they would have if they'd been overruled?
Sense?
Not exactly... they may dismiss a case because they feel that it is not something that they have the jurisdiction over... basically bump it up to the next court. This case will go to the supreme court if they will hear it. I suppose that they could decline to hear it, but I can't see how they would do that since so much is at stake.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
It's likely that te case will be dismissed despite any potential merrit that it may have. The powers that be are looking for a smooth transition at this point.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.
mpjh wrote:The judge dismissed the lawsuit on November 4th.
The order was denied by Judge David Souter and then it was deemed to at least be worthy enough for the Supreme Court Justices to hold a private conference on the matter. Judge Clarence Thomas sent the issue to a CONFERENCE of the Supreme Court on December 5th:
I am waging the Supreme Court will weigh the matter as "too damaging" to the fabric of the nation to allow the suit to proceed. I would like to see Obama declared publicly as a fraud, but just think of all the riots that would happen through out the nation. And just think of all those handguns being sold around Washington DC since the handgun ban was lifted by these same Supreme Court Justices. If the Supreme court does consider the Obama election to be fraudulent, I hope that the liberal population has civility to keep themselves calm over this matter; but I reckon they will become violent over the whole issue. The conservatives aren't becoming violent over the issue, they are just trying to get to the bottom of a forth coming birth certificate from Honolulu; and if it is found that Obama is an illegal alien from Kenya/Indonesia, wouldn't you be glad that we found out BEFORE the guy was in office for the next four years?
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
mpjh wrote:Sorry, if they take not action, conference or not, the case remains dead. The only way the case gets a life is if the court opens an appeal.
so the fact that the issue is still in debate and still has a chance to result in a hearing, it is, in your opinion, dead? Funny... I didn't realize that you has that kind of authority that you can decide what is live and dead in the legal system.
Where is our resident lawyer wanna-be. Captain Butt-Chin... please tell us what is correct here!
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
