OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.

He first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.

I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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?

Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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?

I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.

I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

He first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.

I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.


Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.

I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.

I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.

Bachellor of Science, Chemical Engineering, Computer engineering, Minor Psychology Ga Institute of technology. I suspect my 'scientific background' is adequate for this discussion.

My memory was close but perfect on the filing date - the date was Aug 21 not Aug 28.

But the essential *facts* of the matter are real simple. Berg asked for Obama / DNC / FEC to prove US citizenship. Rather than provide evidence of the same - the defense requested dismissal for lack of standing.

In other words, the judge said - you don't have a right to compel obama to prove he is a citizen.

I think Berg's origianl question is actually pretty reasonable, and find the whole defense, and ruling pretty unreasonable. And I would think that if the same were done to any candidate.

ymmv.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

But the essential *facts* of the matter are real simple. Berg asked for Obama / DNC / FEC to prove US citizenship. Rather than provide evidence of the same - the defense requested dismissal for lack of standing.

In other words, the judge said - you don't have a right to compel obama to prove he is a citizen.

I think Berg's origianl question is actually pretty reasonable, and find the whole defense, and ruling pretty unreasonable. And I would think that if the same were done to any candidate.

His words, like I quoted, were rather "It doesn't matter". You can read the exact document at the link that I gave. Since Berg isn't satisfied with that, he appealed the same complaint to the US Supreme Court again. I wish him the best of luck.

In that second link, you'll also find a link to Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate, which is enough to prove his US citizenship to a layman like me, unless somebody can make a compelling case before court that it isn't. The second paragraph in the page that I linked to even has this:

A similar court challenge was previously made to the citizenship of Obama's presidential rival, Senator John McCain, arguing that McCain did not qualify as a "natural born" US citizen

so I'd say that justice was served: Surprise, surprise, they didn't stop McCain's presidential campaign dead in its tracks because of this, either.