Quote:
Originally Posted by lch
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
While I disagree with your argument that it is necessary to show legal evidence in order to prove that a candidates behaviour is relevent - nonetheless, here you go.
Take a look a Berg V. Obama, a.k.a Berg V. the DNC. Filed by a Democrat, in the Philadephia circuit.
|
I did. He doesn't have any documents backing his claims either. He just calculatedly filed a lawsuit against Obama to attack his position when he was competing against Clinton. If this lawsuit is being resolved at some time and if evidence is unearthed that there is something fishy, then I will re-adjust my position accordingly. But so far it's nothing but empty accusations, and the motto is "In dubio pro reo".
The rest of your post is useless ranting again, I'm afraid that you still have no clothes. |
You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.
The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.
There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?
To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?
As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.