THE Obama lawsuit to follow

[Bob Hubbard]

Does it not surprise you that the National Inquirer has not jumped on this?
They have a reputation for printing things that aren't true, and such action could more than likely prompt the traditional media to at least investigate.
Even that rag won't touch it because more than likely there is nothing there.
This would be too big a story to shelve, and if there were the slightest indication that it held the possibility of being true, the Inquirer would be all over it.
Of course, time will tell but, this court crap has been going on long before the election and nothing has come of any of it.
You can bet the farm if the courts thought it had merit, they would put it on the front burner.
Remember the 2000 election fiasco in Florida?
The surpreme court dropped everything so they could study and make a ruling on the election.
They felt it was important, and that time was of the essence.
I would think a case involving the soon to be president of the united states, would be something they would want to address immediately for the benefit of the country, let alone the rest of the world, especially if it dealt with a violation of the constitution.
The case brought by Berg should have been enough to cause some curiosity within the legal system, regardless of wheather he lacked standing or not.
Still, nothing from any government agency or court has been forthcomming in this matter.
The complaint went before one of the justices of the court, and was denied.
That should tell you something.
Don't you think had it seemed plausible, the justice would have moved forward on it?
Whome ever is filing these complaints is obviously lacking evidence to support the complaint.
Saying something, and then prooving it in a court of law, are two entirely different positions.
No one has come up with unimpeachable evidence that he is not a natural born citizen.
Perhaps he isn't, but the courts need proof that substansive evidence to a complaint exist, andi n this case we havn't seen any.
Bob.

 

[turborich]

I am filing a lawsuit! I fel McCain owes the U.S for 3 aircraft that he destroyed, O.K two I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say the third times, he was shot down.

You are a very stupid person.

 

[Calabrio]

Of course, time will tell but, this court crap has been going on long before the election and nothing has come of any of it.

You have this pattern. You make statements, then when they are challenged, you don't even respond to them. You just continue to repeat your claim.
I'm not part of this movement, but your statements simply aren't accurate. This "court crap' hasn't been going on long. This is what makes it so curious is my mind, Obama and the DNC have been fighting to keep it out of court. So far, the argument itself hasn't seen a court room, it's been bogged down in procedure.

You can bet the farm if the courts thought it had merit, they would put it on the front burner.[
Remember the 2000 election fiasco in Florida?

Entirely different situation, and even in that situation, the case had to move through a number of steps. It's all about procedure.

The case brought by Berg should have been enough to cause some curiosity within the legal system, regardless of wheather he lacked standing or not.

It doesn't work like that.

No one has come up with unimpeachable evidence that he is not a natural born citizen.
Perhaps he isn't, but the courts need proof that substansive evidence to a complaint exist, andi n this case we havn't seen any.
Bob.

No one has had the opportunity to make the argument yet. For some reason, the DNC has been aggressive in prevent this from happening by arguing that Berg lacked standing to sue. I do not have an explanation why, this issue could easily be resolved without the courts if the Obama wanted to.

 

[Cheez_94]

Can't we just let it go, the guy was elected let him do his job. This Country has been drug through the mud long enough. It's time to come together and move forward. There are much bigger issues than this to deal with.

BTW No, I did not vote for him

 

[MonsterMark]

Of course we should just let it go. It is only the Constitution.

We have better things to worry about like bailing out every industry that has its hand out.

I can't believe you people call yourself Americans when you so easily dismiss all that this Country stands for and all of those who fought and died to support the freedoms we all enjoy.

Now just because an Arab-American becomes the soon to be President-Elect and who also happens to be a socialist Democrat, ah, just forget it. Screw the Constitution.

I pity you all.

 

[MonsterMark]

BTW No, I did not vote for him

Um sure, Mr. ILiveinConservativeHell. LMAO

 

[lincolnx2]

You are so stupid that it actually makes me uncomfortable for you.

all i am saying is lets quit whining about the situation, suck it up and drive on, get the sand out of your P U S S Y and live life. HE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, THERE IS NOTHIN "LIL OLE" YOU OR ME CAN DO ABOUT IT. Hell i should file a lawsuit against every person that isn't Native American, because the 2,000,000 of them are the only ones that truly own this land.

Dont feel uncomfortable me, I got a M4, with 210 rounds and a M9 with 45 rounds, I am very comfortable.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Can't we just let it go, the guy was elected let him do his job. This Country has been drug through the mud long enough. It's time to come together and move forward. There are much bigger issues than this to deal with.

BTW No, I did not vote for him

I did not vote for him either but, this is an important issue here IF it can be proven.
If the facts support the claim that he is not a natural born citizen, it would set a presidence for future candidates if he were allowed to take office.
I have always had the belief that if someone files a claim in any court, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in the suit.
If this issue is not backed up by proof, or at least some sort of substanciating evidence, it would be thrown out.
When claims are filed,documentation , or the presumption that documentation to support the claim will be forthcomming, are submitted in order for the case to be accepted, or denied.
In this case, the DNC could try and block any complaint from going forth but, it is up to the court to make that decision, and without something to back up a claim, the court has the duty to deny the claim.
To put it in a simpler context.
Let's say, you took a job as a professor at some college.
In the course of checking your records,once you have been hired, the college board think they found , among your documents, one that appears to have been forged.
This document is related to immigration, and is proof that you are able to stay and teach in this country.
Not wanting to take a chance on you, they terminate you on the belife that your documentation has been forged, and they so stated in their letter of termination.
You decide to take the college to court by filing a claim of wronful termination based on a document you belive to be authentic, and not a forgery.
Now, when filing that complaint, you must either provide proof within the complaint of what you are charging, or state proof will be forthcomming in the procedings.
If you do not offer this within the complaint, the court would look at it as a frivilous lawsuit, and deny the claim.
When I attended college, I remember that first day of orientation from my professor.
In all the years since, I never forgot one sentence he said.
He was explaining how misconceptions happen throughout society, in all facets of life, and those misconceptions could produce a negative outcome.
He went on too say, "Know where of you speak".
"In other words, be prepared, present your case with substantial evidence to back it up".
This has not been done in the issue with the Obama birth certificate, as far as the person filing the claim.
I have not read, or seen anything that would cause me to think the plaintiffs in this suit have offered anything substantial to move this case forward.
You say it's black, I say it's white.
Show me proof that it is as you say.
Without that proof, you are , quoting here, "out of gas", case dismissed.
Bob.

 

[Calabrio]

all i am saying is lets quit whining about the situation,

There's no whining going on.
If the guy isn't constitutional eligible to be the President, that's the end of the discussion. There's no opinion, debate, or wiggle room on this.

It's been challenged and hopefully he'll be able to demonstrate that he is eligible for the position he's been elected to serve in. If not, then Joe Biden becomes the next Commander-In-Chief and the chaos will ensue.

Hell i should file a lawsuit against every person that isn't Native American, because the 2,000,000 of them are the only ones that truly own this land.

You'd only be able to do that because the Indians killed the population that preceded them. They don't have a legacy, they were completely whiped out, so you'll be safe.

Dont feel uncomfortable me, I got a M4, with 210 rounds and a M9 with 45 rounds, I am very comfortable.

I don't worry for you, but you're so dumb it makes me cringe...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I just finished reading another post on this forum that may add some substance to this arguement.
The thread is located here, http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=48095

If proceedures were followed according to this testimony, then Mr. Berg did indeed follow protocol, and should have had the case heard.
If he offered proof , or intention during the proceedings that proof would be forthcomming of what he stated in his complaint, then the court had a duty to move forward on the case.
Lacking standing would omit him from the case, but should not have ended the case at that point.
It did not, (if the evidence provided, or soon to be provided) allow for any interpretation by the court to deny or proceed with the action.
Clearly this matter should have moved forward through ther court if the evidence was, or there was a reasonably expectation that it would be, forthcomming.
On the other hand perhaps Berg's intentions were too vague for the court to rule in his favor.
At this point appeals are the only direction that he or others can persue
Bob.

 

[Calabrio]

I have always had the belief that if someone files a claim in any court, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in the suit.

This isn't that kind of case. They aren't charging him with doing something, they are challenging his credibility. They aren't then forced to prove a negative. Obama would simply have to demonstrate proof that he's a natural citiizenship. This shouldn't be a challenge for anyone.

In this case, the DNC could try and block any complaint from going forth but, it is up to the court to make that decision, and without something to back up a claim, the court has the duty to deny the claim.

There is more to it than that. The DNC can, and has, filed in the court to have the complaint dismissed, NOT because of a lack of cause, but because the person did not have the standing to sue. If you fall down a flight of stairs, I can't sue for damages. I don't have standing to do that. That was the argument the DNC made.

I have not read, or seen anything that would cause me to think the plaintiffs in this suit have offered anything substantial to move this case forward.

Without that proof, you are , quoting here, "out of gas", case dismissed.
Bob.

To use you're technique of painfully long stories to illustrate a point:
Let's pretend I was applying for a job that required a specialized license. I apply for the position but i don't have that license. I might think I have the license, I might have a different license, but I don't have the SPECIFIC license that the position requires.

The human resource department takes my word that I have the license and they offer me a position with the company. Someone then asks me to see the license... I refuse to show them. They continue to ask. I instead hand them a photocopy of a license. They take the issue up with the human resources department.

Now, it's not up to them to PROVE that I don't have a license, all I have to do is show them it.

There's no burden of proof here. There's no way to conclude "I'm 80% sure that he has eligibility." It's something that can be determined with certainty.

The most suspect element of this entire story remains, why hasn't Obama been more forth coming with this information. You would think it would be an easy and, thus, trivial, issue to easily resolve. As mentioned in the thread, presuming he is a natural born U.S. citizen, I think that the release of the documents might open him up for a perjury charge because of legal forms he might have filled out in the past that were less than accurate. Fox speculated that there might be some father issues?

 

[SilverSweetness]

Flip Flop

Mind you I like Obama, voted for him, and support the ideals he SEEMS to stand for.

I think that a lot of people are glad for many reasons that we have a black president, and due to that they are willing to overlook important stuff so we don't lose him. The reasons are obvious enough, the riots WOULD happen and there would be a backlash of inconceivable proportions from the black community.


So in reality the damage to the country would be worse physically if he gets dropped, but the constitutional damage is a problem too.

HOWEVER

When I think about the constitution and the original meaning and I am sure there are many instances of laws and other situations that go against the original intent.

I feel that like here in Illinois, the lack of concealed carry laws and the requirement of a FOID card, and registration of guns in general, is a restriction of my right to bear arms. IMHO

Patriot Act.... IMHO

I would like to hear from anyone else who has an opinion of other instances of the constitution being shoved aside for whatever reason, But the end result has never been a cataclysmic end to the American way of life or democracy itself. Perhaps only the slow degradation of it.

 

[04SCTLS]

His lawsuit was put in front of the Honorable Clarence Thomas today. We'll see what happens.

So the first black justice on SCOTUS has to make a decision about the first black president elect.

Don't you think blood is thicker than water even if it is Clarence Thomas.

 

[MonsterMark]

So the first black justice on SCOTUS has to make a decision about the first black president elect.

Don't you think blood is thicker than water even if it is Clarence Thomas.

No, he just has to convince two other Justices to hear the case. And like I said, Scalia would have been my choice but I admit I don't know the process that decides who you send it up to.

AND....Obama is not the first black President.

He's the first Bi-Racial presidential candidate
He's the first Arab-American presidential candidate

But he is certainly not the 1st black president. Myself being caucasian, I take offense to that description of him.

And he is not the President...
Nor is he the President-Elect...
Right now he is a Senator from the State of Illinois and a presidential candidate who won the popular vote in the United States 2008 presidential election.
Nothing more!

 

[04SCTLS]

AND....Obama is not the first black President.

He's the first Bi-Racial presidential candidate
He's the first Arab-American presidential candidate


Nothing more!

Although this may be technically true Obama looks black, has a black wife and has lived in black communities. As an adult he hasn't exactly been hanging out in mosques or living with arabs in the arab community.
Being biracial and having caucasian blood and the people who helped raise him gives him a plus over the average pure black candidate.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"The human resource department takes my word that I have the license and they offer me a position with the company. Someone then asks me to see the license... I refuse to show them. They continue to ask. I instead hand them a photocopy of a license. They take the issue up with the human resources department.

Now, it's not up to them to PROVE that I don't have a license, all I have to do is show them it."

Right, it is not up to them BUT, it is up to you to prove the license if you want to keep the job, and if you were terminated because they felt you were unlicensed, you would go into court seeking your job back.
The court would, at the filing either, want to see the original license, of be assured that at some time during the proceedinge it would be reasonable to expect that you would offer valid proof of the licence, and not a photocopy.
Again, as with this birth certificate issue, Berg, or anyone else filing a simiar claim must show cause of action, in the form of physical evidence attached to the complaint, or a reasonable expectation of it forthcomming during the proceedings.
I don't understand Berg filing this complaint as an individual.
He may have had a better chance had it been a class action suit whereby the populous is the plaintiff.
Whatever the case, one is bound by all courts to offer proof of charges made, and it is long held that the plaintiff in the case has that burden of proof.
Bob.

 

[lincolnx2]

I don't worry for you, but you're so dumb it makes me cringe...[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't "cringe" because i am so "dumb", my comments shouldn't move you in any way. I can do anything that will stop you from living or making a living, and you can't do anything that will stop me from doing the same. You should really learn to express yourself without name calling, i almost shed a tear, but then I remembered I could give a less about you or what you think.

 

[Calabrio]

You shouldn't "cringe" because i am so "dumb", my comments shouldn't move you in any way.

I'm sorry, it's just that I'm such a compassionate person....

You should really learn to express yourself without name calling, i almost shed a tear, but then I remembered I could give a F U C K less about you or what you think.

That's o.k. I have so much pity for you, there's easily enough for two people.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In the words of my former professor, "Know where of you speak", I offer the following.
This was taken from a site explaining court proceedure as it relates to the filing of a complaint. I know exactly where of I speak.


Procedures for Filing a Complaint to the SGA Judicial Council (Certiorari)
Step 1:
Fill out the attached form. The plaintiff is the person(s) bringing the complaint to the court; usually this
person is you and/or the club or group you represent. The defendant is the person(s) or group you are
filing the complaint against.
Please date the form, and on the lines provided give a brief summary of your complaint.
Step 2:
Please attach a statement, called a legal brief, to the form provided. It must be 12 point font double
spaced. This brief should have the details of who you are or who you represent and who the defendants
are. Your complaint should be detailed in full and include a list of all of the evidence you intend to
provide to the court. The brief is considered to be a legal statement so tell the truth the WHOLE truth and
nothing but the truth. While the brief is not mandatory the court will have a much better understanding of
your arguments if it is in this format.
Bob.

 

[foxpaws]

So the first black justice on SCOTUS has to make a decision about the first black president elect.

Don't you think blood is thicker than water even if it is Clarence Thomas.

Ah, hey guys (I noticed this too in an article that shag posted yesterday, this odd idea that Clarence Thomas is the first black justice... and that he has overcome great obstacles...

Two words... Thurgood Marshall. Who time has already judged as a great man, with endearing ideals. Who actually overcame much bigger obstacles in his life - such as not being allowed into law school of his choice for the simple reason he was black. It was even stated that way on the 'rejection' letter.

 

[04SCTLS]

Ok I stand corrected,
The (current) black justice on SCOTUS.

 

[fossten]

Being biracial and having caucasian blood and the people who helped raise him gives him a plus over the average pure black candidate.

How?

 

[shagdrum]

Again, as with this birth certificate issue, Berg, or anyone else filing a simiar claim must show cause of action, in the form of physical evidence attached to the complaint, or a reasonable expectation of it forthcomming during the proceedings.

"Cause of action" is not dependant on any evidence, but on a set of facts "sufficient to justify a right to sue". It is not dependant on "evidence" except where it is necessary to prove those facts, and that is not necessary when filing the claim.

Berg more then met the cause of action to justify the the right to sue. That has never been challenged.

Whatever the case, one is bound by all courts to offer proof of charges made, and it is long held that the plaintiff in the case has that burden of proof.

You are talking about "evidentiary burden" or "burden of leading evidence". That is a burden that shifts between partys during the case and is clearly not on the plantiff at the beginning of this trial.

The standard of proof is also much different depending on weather it is a criminal or civil trial. In a criminal case, the standard of proof is at the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, while at the civil level (which this case would be), it is much lower; at the "preponderance of evidence".

 

[shagdrum]

[Thurgood Marshall] actually overcame much bigger obstacles in his life [then Clarance Thomas] - such as not being allowed into law school of his choice for the simple reason he was black. It was even stated that way on the 'rejection' letter.

You might wanna check your history on that. Thomas hardly had it "easy". It is arguable at best, weather Marshall had to "overcome more obstacles in his life" then Thomas.

You should read Thomas' book, My Grandfather's Son.

 

[turborich]

Mind you I like Obama, voted for him, and support the ideals he SEEMS to stand for.

I think that a lot of people are glad for many reasons that we have a black president, and due to that they are willing to overlook important stuff so we don't lose him. The reasons are obvious enough, the riots WOULD happen and there would be a backlash of inconceivable proportions from the black community.


So in reality the damage to the country would be worse physically if he gets dropped, but the constitutional damage is a problem too.

HOWEVER

When I think about the constitution and the original meaning and I am sure there are many instances of laws and other situations that go against the original intent.

I feel that like here in Illinois, the lack of concealed carry laws and the requirement of a FOID card, and registration of guns in general, is a restriction of my right to bear arms. IMHO

Patriot Act.... IMHO

I would like to hear from anyone else who has an opinion of other instances of the constitution being shoved aside for whatever reason, But the end result has never been a cataclysmic end to the American way of life or democracy itself. Perhaps only the slow degradation of it.

I am so sick of people reminding us that he is black! WHO CARES? This isn't what this is about!!!!!!!