Birth Certificate

[2daloo]

just curious.what other issues do you defend?

 

[random3434]

just curious.what other issues do you defend?

You're a n00b, so I'll just tell you we have a place for all the threads like this. Welcome!

 

[elvis]

just curious.what other issues do you defend?

I defended him when he went on the Tonight show and said his bowling was like the special olympics. I defended his killing of the fly.

can't think of anything else.

 

[DiveCon]

just curious.what other issues do you defend?

I defended him when he went on the Tonight show and said his bowling was like the special olympics. I defended his killing of the fly.

can't think of anything else.

same here
on all those issues

 

[MaggieMae]

The least inspiring thing about the BC crowd is the fact that they can't find a single competent lawyer to represent them.

If the best they can do is a kook like Phil Berg and an incompetent like Orly Taitz (who can't even successfully negotiate civil procedure and who apparently didn't learn that ex parte communication is a no-no at her online law school), it's pretty obvious that this thing has absolutely no legs.

If there were anything to this, the best conservative consitutional lawyers in the country would be all over it. It would be one of the biggest cases in the history of our country and a ticket to instant fame.

Berg also cited Wikipedia in his briefs, only confirming that his lawyerly skills aren't even on a par with a paralegal who would have known to use Wiki's references, not the Wikipedia website itself.

 

[MaggieMae]

I love how the Left tried to question McCain's citizenship... projection and distraction, perhaps?

Nobody was questioning whether or not McCain is a citizen. The question was what's the difference? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

 

[MaggieMae]

Add to this the Obama's hatred of America and things start don't look right at all.

Standing at the throne of God, eh?

 

[Yurt]

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

no, standing means you cannot even bring the claim, the claim is never heard, no merits are ever decided, the truth is never even pondered. you need to read up on what standing means as it is quite clear from your ignorant post that you have no idea what it means. you clearly think it means it didn't "warrant" a trial because it wasn't good enough....that is completely false. frivolous has absolutely zero to do with standing, at least if a court decides you have a frivolous case you've been heard, with standing, you don't even get to present anything for the judge to adjudicate on as lack of standing, in a broad sense, means you cannot present any of your claims

google it and then get back to me

I know what "standing" means (you have to show that you've been damaged to bring your case), I've even followed Taitz's lackluster attempts to gain standing by recruiting Keyes and Easterling to her suit.

Like I said, if you've been denied standing, the court has determined there are no merits to your claim and thus it is frivelous.

Thus, you've had your day in court. The fact that they wouldn't hear your case doesn't mean you've been denied due process.

Them's the rules.

you are the biggest idiot EVER...standing is more than just being damaged you moron...

the court denied them standing because the court said they could not bring the claim....it had nothing to do with the merits

you're flat lying if you say the court denied standing on the merits and you're flat out lying to claim denying standing means its frivolous and learn how spell the word idiot, it is not spelled frivelous

 

[Yurt]

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

while i dont take the whole "the BC is fake" stand

if an American Citizen doesnt have standing to take a constitutional issue to the courts, who does?

In this sense, I can see both sides of the arguement. It is congress' job to certify the election, and opening up a contest issue to any individual citizen sets the precedent to allow a single citizen to stymie the will of the people (in an election) via the courts.

Procedure isn't sexy, but it's an integral part of the law.

Underlying the whole issue of the birther legal challenge though are two incompetent lawyers. Berg is half nuts and Taitz is so incompetent that when something doesn't go their way, the rational person has to ask if justice has not been served or if the lawyers bungled the case.

you're flat out wrong again....it is not about a single person stopping the will of the people via the courts...if obama is not eligible, it doesn't matter if 200 million people voted him, he cannot take office per the United States Constitution...

your opinion as to berg is irrelevent to whether obama is qualified to sit for office....mccain showed his and more, obama is hiding his and more

 

[geauxtohell]

you are the biggest idiot EVER...standing is more than just being damaged you moron...

the court denied them standing because the court said they could not bring the claim....it had nothing to do with the merits

you're flat lying if you say the court denied standing on the merits and you're flat out lying to claim denying standing means its frivolous and learn how spell the word idiot, it is not spelled frivelous

Oh, Yurt-y boy, is this the best you can do? Throw out names and give me some negative rep? You really are throwing a temper tantrum aren't you?

We can't play the circular logic game all day, but the rules are the rules. You have to show damages to have standing. If you don't have standing, you haven't been damaged, there is no merit to your case. They couldn't bring the claim, because they couldn't show how they had been damaged.

BTW, I see you double as a grammar cop here. Can I just pay my grammar ticket now and avoid an annoying appearance in grammar court?

Personally, I think grammar/spelling Nazis on message boards are fucking retards, but if you are going to cast stones, you should at least clean up your own piss-poor grammar.

 

[Yurt]

you are the biggest idiot EVER...standing is more than just being damaged you moron...

the court denied them standing because the court said they could not bring the claim....it had nothing to do with the merits

you're flat lying if you say the court denied standing on the merits and you're flat out lying to claim denying standing means its frivolous and learn how spell the word idiot, it is not spelled frivelous

Oh, Yurt-y boy, is this the best you can do? Throw out names and give me some negative rep? You really are throwing a temper tantrum aren't you?

We can't play the circular logic game all day, but the rules are the rules. You have to show damages to have standing. If you don't have standing, you haven't been damaged, there is no merit to your case. They couldn't bring the claim, because they couldn't show how they had been damaged.

BTW, I see you double as a grammar cop here. Can I just pay my grammar ticket now and avoid an annoying appearance in grammar court?

Personally, I think grammar/spelling Nazis on message boards are fucking retards, but if you are going to cast stones, you should at least clean up your own piss-poor grammar.

if you think a neg rep is a temper tantrum, get off the board

the damages are clear....if obama is not eligible, we have a person in office who is violating the constitution. they were denied standing because the court reasoned they were not the proper parties to bring the claim. it is a bullshit ruling that ignores the fact that people can and will be harmed by having a president who is not constitutionally qualified.

by sticking to the damage theory you only show your ignorance of teh standing issue in this case. the damages are of course for redressability....if you are not harmed, there is nothing the court can do. if you really think that americans having a president, who "potentially" might not be constitutionally qualified for the job, is not a harm, then you are as ignorant as the courts. if an american cannot question a person's constitutional qualifications to represent us, then we really have very little rights in who runs this country.

 

[geauxtohell]

you're flat out wrong again....it is not about a single person stopping the will of the people via the courts...if obama is not eligible, it doesn't matter if 200 million people voted him, he cannot take office per the United States Constitution...

We are talking about the issue of standing, and why the judges most likely denied it (having not read the opinion).

Obviously, the courts feel standing is relevant and are denying "birther" cases based on it.

Of course, if the lunatic and the dentist were competent attorneys, they might be successful.

Unfortunately, Berg is crazy and Taitz is incompetent.

The "birthers" can't seem to find a single attorney that is worth a damn.

Why do you think that is?

your opinion as to berg is irrelevent to whether obama is qualified to sit for office....mccain showed his and more, obama is hiding his and more

My opinion of Berg is my opinion. It's backed up by his past legal record, and don't shoot me that shit about being an assistant AG or whatnot. He lost his credibility when he tried to get Bush prosecuted at the Hague. He's a loon. Taitz is crazy too, but her incompetence is more alarming. Perhaps getting her law degree at a non-accredited, online law school didn't serve her well.

I wonder how the woman, who has a poor command of the English language, was able to pass the California bar.

At any rate, your last statement is inaccurate. Both Obama and McCain released the necessary documents to prove their eligibility. The fact that you didn't get to see Obama's long form is irrelevant since the short form is considered as prima facie evidence in a court of law.

I understand you are frustrated. You guys keep losing. So go have your kangaroo courts (i.e. "citizen's grand juries") and piss and moan.

You aren't changing a fucking thing.

 

[JBeukema]

The way I see it, one of two things is true:

A) He is not qualified. the courts are protecting him. The Republic is dead
or
B)He is qualified. A growing number of Americans can't trust the fed and the courts refuse to even address any concerns. The Republic is dead

 

[JBeukema]

Let them in court... if he is qualified, shut them up and prove that the system works. If he hes is not, remove him ad show that the system can work...

 

[geauxtohell]

if you think a neg rep is a temper tantrum, get off the board

LOL. I think your incessantly whiny posts are temper tantrums. Neg rep me til the cows come home, I don't give a fuck. I think it's hilarious that this issue has obviously driven you over the bend.

the damages are clear....if obama is not eligible, we have a person in office who is violating the constitution. they were denied standing because the court reasoned they were not the proper parties to bring the claim. it is a bullshit ruling that ignores the fact that people can and will be harmed by having a president who is not constitutionally qualified.

Whaaaaaaaaa! I disagree with the ruling so I am going to have a pity party about it! Whaaaaaaa!

Like I said, whine all you want. The only relevant thing is the court's decision.

Welcome to the American judicial system. You don't get every call in your favor. I've already lined out a logical reason why standing is important on this issue.

by sticking to the damage theory you only show your ignorance of teh standing issue

Oh my God! You misspelled "the"!

in this case. the damages are of course for redressability....if you are not harmed, there is nothing the court can do. if you really think that americans having a president, who "potentially" might not be constitutionally qualified for the job, is not a harm, then you are as ignorant as the courts. if an american cannot question a person's constitutional qualifications to represent us, then we really have very little rights in who runs this country.

A mighty fine arguement, that the courts completely disagree with.

Like I said, having been stymied in the courts, continue to wallow in your own importence with your kangaroo courts.

Then try and serve and indictment for one of your "Citizen's Grand Juries" and see what happens.

 

[geauxtohell]

Let them in court... if he is qualified, shut them up and prove that the system works. If he hes is not, remove him ad show that the system can work...

The issue of standing being protected is important to the larger process. I laid out my reasoning in post #68.

Obama isn't always going to be President, but the precedent set by allowing any citizen to disrupte the electorial process will remain.

I don't blame the courts for ruling the way they did. Talk about being an "activist judge".

 

[Yurt]

Let them in court... if he is qualified, shut them up and prove that the system works. If he hes is not, remove him ad show that the system can work...

absolutely

mccain put all his info on the table, obama pays money to fight to hide his information. the people who do not believe he is a citizen, all they want, is for their day in court. for more proof, other than a copy of the certification....i would think that obama, being a former lawyer, would understand people's desire for proof and evidence, i would think he would want to quash these rumors and make a fool out of those who question he eligibility, i would think mr. i promise to be open and transparent would give all he has to show he is eligible, to be open and transparent instead

he pays lawyers to stop him from being open and transparent

 

[Againsheila]

has obama proved that he is eligible to be president?the issue of his citizenship was in doubt but i haven't read or heard anything about this for awhile.is it resolved?

He's a citizen. He's legally qualified to be the president. It's one of the very few issues I'll defend him on.

I'm not even sure he's a citizen. If he truly was adopted by his Indonesian father and made an Indonesian citizen and Indonesia doesn't allow duel citizenship, then he can't possibly be an American citizen, even if he was born here as he gave up his citizenship at some point.

If he was born in Kenya, as his Kenyan grandmother claimed, then he couldn't possible meet the requirements for being president of the USA, of course McCain didn't either, which is way he never brought it up.

Again, this is something we will find out the truth of in the future. The supreme court doesn't dare hear the case as it would case such an uproar if the truth came out.....I don't think our country could stand it....of course, I believe our country is falling apart anyway, why not go out with a bang?

 

[Political Junky]

has obama proved that he is eligible to be president?the issue of his citizenship was in doubt but i haven't read or heard anything about this for awhile.is it resolved?

He's a citizen. He's legally qualified to be the president. It's one of the very few issues I'll defend him on.

I'm not even sure he's a citizen. If he truly was adopted by his Indonesian father and made an Indonesian citizen and Indonesia doesn't allow duel citizenship, then he can't possibly be an American citizen, even if he was born here as he gave up his citizenship at some point.

If he was born in Kenya, as his Kenyan grandmother claimed, then he couldn't possible meet the requirements for being president of the USA, of course McCain didn't either, which is way he never brought it up.

Again, this is something we will find out the truth of in the future. The supreme court doesn't dare hear the case as it would case such an uproar if the truth came out.....I don't think our country could stand it....of course, I believe our country is falling apart anyway, why not go out with a bang?

Wow, and the person that wrote this probably thinks conspiracy theories about 9/11 are weird.

 

[Againsheila]

He's a citizen. He's legally qualified to be the president. It's one of the very few issues I'll defend him on.

I'm not even sure he's a citizen. If he truly was adopted by his Indonesian father and made an Indonesian citizen and Indonesia doesn't allow duel citizenship, then he can't possibly be an American citizen, even if he was born here as he gave up his citizenship at some point.

If he was born in Kenya, as his Kenyan grandmother claimed, then he couldn't possible meet the requirements for being president of the USA, of course McCain didn't either, which is way he never brought it up.

Again, this is something we will find out the truth of in the future. The supreme court doesn't dare hear the case as it would case such an uproar if the truth came out.....I don't think our country could stand it....of course, I believe our country is falling apart anyway, why not go out with a bang?

Wow, and the person that wrote this probably thinks conspiracy theories about 9/11 are weird.

What part of it don't you understand? McCain was born in Panama, not a natural born citizen, can't run for president. I know this, I was born in England, on an American Air Force base to two American citizens. My brother was born in Japan on an American Air Force base to two American citizens. Both of us have our naturalized citizenship papers. We were told we weren't American citizens...now if we weren't, McCain wasn't. Fair is fair.