"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Monday, October 27, 2008

BERG'S LAW SUIT DISMISSED

From this source:
Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
I don't know that I quibble with Berg's lacking standing. That may indeed be so.

But Obama's Constitutional qualifications don't matter? Is that what the judge is saying? If so, then this also follows:



When I posted the above over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, an anonymous commenter left this link. Excerpt:
In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case....
Go HERE to read the rest and view the graphics.

Now, sometimes the blogosphere is filled with rumor and unsubstantiated data presented as fact. Then again, sometimes the blogosphere does report the truth. Wasn't it the blogosphere which broke the story of all the PhotoShopped material used by the mainstream press during the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006?

As I said earlier in this post, my primary concern about the dismissal of the law suit is that the judge — a Clinton appointee, if I'm not mistaken — appears to have ruled that Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States can be ignored. Another manifestation of Obama-mania? You decide.

(Crossposted from Always On Watch)

1 comment:

McCoy said...

"As I said earlier in this post, my primary concern about the dismissal of the law suit is that the judge — a Clinton appointee, if I'm not mistaken — appears to have ruled that Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States can be ignored."

That isn't what the judge ruled, and I don't think it "appears" that way to anyone capable of rational thought. It is unfortunate that the prospect of an Obama presidency has rendered so many unable to qualify as such.