The Berg Lawsuit against Obama-Why the media silence?

FINALLY! A Real reporter asking real questions to VP candidate Joe Biden.....

Kool-Aid is empty. Oh boy, look with Hitler aka Obama did right after per Drudge

YOU'RE PUNISHED: OBAMA CAMPAIGN CUTS OFF TV STATION AFTER TOUGH BIDEN INTERVIEW...

Beckwith: Did you see one of O'Reilly's producers try to interview that POS Ayers, one of the nefarious evil puppeteers behind the retarded narcissist Barack?
He's a wimpy sniveling ugly old man filled with himself. While gathering groceries out of his car trunk before his mansion down the street from Barack's, O'Reilly's producer peppers him with questions as to his relationship with Barack and his repentance for his bombings. Ayers was wearing a sweater with a huge red star, reminiscent of China's communist logo. He says nothing, just tries to "get outta there."
You know what he says at his door? "This is MY property. Get off MY property." (sic)
The main thing he wants to do to us is remove our property rights, destroy capitalism, send our country into anarchy, and he hopes for a China, Russia and North Vietnamese take over of America and to put tens of millions of us into extermination camps and reeducation camps and annihilate 25 million + Americans! So say the FBI operatives who infiltrated his group!

And then you know what he does after his door is closed? He calls the POLICE! The ones he tried to bomb and kill himself!!

Ah so here's the COMMIE who wants PROPERTY RIGHTS AND POLICE PROTECTION BUT ONLY FOR HIMSELF.

I'm sure O'Reilly's producer must've said something to the effect of, "you know THIS guy tried to KILL COPS!" but they did their jobs anyway. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??

You know, a pathetic little piece of shit man he is, how bold of him in his shriveled skin to instruct his puppet in how to destroy 300 million people's lives. He, Zbig, Plouffe, Axelrod, they are the real threats to America.

Hey, JUST GENERIC RHETORICAL QUESTIONS POSED INTO THIN AIR...
but Ayers, Plouffe and Axelrod and Zbig do not have secret service protection do they?
They sure stick their necks way out there considering all they want Americans to lose don't they?
They sure prescribe death and destruction for US while living the good life, all free and easy and rich don't they?
Hmm. Well we can only conclude that these are very brave individuals, the pinnacle of courage! (cough, cough)

Beckwith, where there is smoke, there is fire on Berg v. Obama et al. It appears that a former law clerk, Christopher B. Seaman (who works at Obama's old law firm Sidney Austin) is the person who drafted the decision which was faxed to Judge Surrick, a Clinton Appointee...

Obama's Public Relations Blunder65
rate or flag this pageBy vrajavala

http://hubpages.com/hub/Obamas-Public-Relations-Mistake

However, attentive followers of the case have noticed some very unusual discrepancies in the decision which can be found on the faxed decision as there is a fax time on the bottom of the document, as well as on the top. they are different times. This suggests that the decision was written elsewhere and faxed to Judge Surrick for his decision. It is specualted that a former law clerk, Christopher B. Seaman, who now works at Obama's old law firm Sidney Austin may be that person. It should be noted that Judge Surrick is a Clinton appointee.The details are covered here

Like I said something is fishy when the Philadelphia Daily News publishes an article w/o the decision for public viewing to confirm.
More info to back up the claim.

Judge Surrick “Received” the Decision He Issued

Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:18:39 PM by RatsDawg

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. From Judge Surrick’s ruling

From Judge Surrick

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.

Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.

[CONFLICTOFINTEREST.jpg]

If I had to surmise from the manner in which things have evolved in this election process, I would link it to the Obama campaign and lawyers in Chicago. The time in Chicago is an hour behind Pennsylvania, and taking into account the slight few minutes that two fax machines may be off in their time settings, it could be concluded that at 4:55p CT, a law firm in Chicago began faxing the memorandum of the Judge’s decision to the JUDGE, and then his office began faxing it out immediately.

I am in the process of reviewing the memorandum, but one item that immediately caught my attention in a brief glance was this comment in the footnotes:

Moreover, the Court In Bullock did not limit or in any way invalidate votes that had already been cast; nor did it void the results of the elections that had taken place. Se Ed. at 136- 37, 149 (affirming that court’s permanent injunction of the filing fee law). By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotIy contested presidential primary in living memory. Pg 11

Points to Ponder:

(1) Why was the PACER system “links” in the Berg v. Obama docket disabled just MOMENTS before the decision was faxed out? Is it possible that the Judge had actually issued a DIFFERENT ruling, and was FORCED to issue the one that was sent to him?

Ref
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2115420/posts

–
**********
R. W. “Dick” Gaines
THE “G” BLOG. @WordPress.com
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/
(AKA: Gunny G’s Globe and Anchor Online….)
**********

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/#more-4216

Obama Charts ‘Reparative’ Redistribution of Wealth Strategy in 2001 Radio Interview

How many other goodies do we have on Obama?

Sounds like a Marxist, Communist, Socialist to me.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, guess what its a duck.

Beckwith, New audio from Drudge Obama (in 2001) states that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and it still is today....wow

No wonder he wants to run for president, he wants to get rid of the constitution

Obama, what are you hiding...Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 26, 2008
9:54 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

From Newsmax, Obama Attacks Founding Fathers, Constitution

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:10 PM

By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size

Barely noticed in the furor over Barack Obama's remarks dealing with re-distribution was the Illinois Democrat's assault on the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created.

Said Obama: "To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical."

What followed that remark was a screed that should frighten the daylights out of any American who understands that the Constitution is the sole and most important safeguard of our rights and our liberties. Without it we are subjects, not citizens.

According to Obama if the Constitution "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."

The document, he argued, "Says what the states can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

That remark shows a shocking ignorance of the purpose of the United States Constitution. Writing in National Review, Bill Whittle explained, "The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government."

And that's the last thing Barack Obama, a devout worshiper at the shrine of Big Brother government, wants to do. It would stop him from taking your money and giving it to someone else.

Obama's remarks would have sent shivers up the spine of Thomas Jefferson, et al. And they should do the same to all thinking Americans who know that without the Constitution as framed by the Founding Fathers to protect our rights and liberties, we would be at the mercy of a powerful and unrestrained Federal Government ruled by power-hungry men like Barack Obama, and not by law.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Let's review the video, shall we....