Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:14 pm
Posts: 858
Location: 45.508420, -122.714760
Obama and DNC PDF is here:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/berg-obamaappealodnc.pdf

_________________
Image How many Birfers does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: None - Birfers are always in the dark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:41 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Edmonds, WA
Victor wrote:
I see that the brief uses the dreaded word "vexatious" in the introduction. What would happen if Berg were to be labelled as a vexatious litigant? Would he be able to continue with any potential appeals?


Well, one can get nailed as a VL in any court system, but it doesn't always carry over to other courts. Still, it's a major black spot on one's record, (though other freaks, like anti-semite Andy Martin, don't let it stop them.)

_________________
Bad Fiction - The Intersection of Bad Movies and Worse Politics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
Comparing the Obama/DNC brief to Berg's is like comparing Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss. :lol: :lol:

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 5496
Quote:
Comparing the Obama/DNC brief to Berg's is like comparing Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:18 am
Posts: 192
I'm not a lawyer, but I almost married one, til he dumped me for some slut and I just read his third wife is divorcing him...sorry, back on topic, can't Berg be reprimanded or something for filing nuisance suits. He is such a fraud. Can someone file complaints with the ABA ? Isn't this a waste of taxpayers' money ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
Jill Christie wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but I almost married one, til he dumped me for some slut and I just read his third wife is divorcing him...sorry, back on topic, can't Berg be reprimanded or something for filing nuisance suits. He is such a fraud. Can someone file complaints with the ABA ? Isn't this a waste of taxpayers' money ?


Sounds like you were lucky by getting dumped. ;)

Yes, he can.

Yes, they can, with his local and state bar disciplinary board.

And yes, it is.

He's previously been sanctioned for his shoddy lawyering.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 12905
Location: location, location
Occupation: Ruler of the Intarwebz
Jill Christie wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but I almost married one, til he dumped me for some slut and I just read his third wife is divorcing him...

:shock:

Quote:
Isn't this a waste of taxpayers' money ?

Yes, it is. And a continuation of the wackiest, most bizarre election EVAR.

I have voted for president 10 times, since 1972 ... only three of those times did the guy I voted for win.

And the silly Birfistanis are trying to revoke my vote. I don't cotton to that kind of nonsense. 8-)

_________________
... then one day I found some birthers on my planet. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:42 pm
Posts: 404
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning!
bogus info wrote:
Quote:
Comparing the Obama/DNC brief to Berg's is like comparing Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Oh come on. Don't you be dissin' Dr. Seuss! I love Dr. Seuss!

It's more like comparing Shakespeare to some really amateurish, clunky, un-actable one-act play that's been rejected from every one-act play festival in every small theatre in the country (and yet the author keeps submitting it, and blames "bias" for the constant rejection...)

_________________
IANALBIPOOTV [I am not a lawyer but I've played one on TV. In fact, I am not a (fill in the blank) but chances are I've played one on TV!]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:11 pm
Posts: 62
Smithereens --

Thanks, but you contributed the "Obama" brief, and not "Berg's".

I'm missing the fun of reading Dr. Seuss (apologies to the good Dr.)

_________________
So sayeth the Rooster so say we all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
P.K. wrote:
bogus info wrote:
Quote:
Comparing the Obama/DNC brief to Berg's is like comparing Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Oh come on. Don't you be dissin' Dr. Seuss! I love Dr. Seuss!

It's more like comparing Shakespeare to some really amateurish, clunky, un-actable one-act play that's been rejected from every one-act play festival in every small theatre in the country (and yet the author keeps submitting it, and blames "bias" for the constant rejection...)


My apologies to the good doctor. You are correct...yours is a much better analogy. :mrgreen:

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
mari wrote:
Quote:
Berg Fighting On
3 Pending Lawsuits

to Expose Obama for "not" being Constitutionally

"qualified/eligible" to be President


WTF is it with Berg and these stupid quote marks? Is "not" eligible any different than not eligible?


No idea...but which is he arguing, qualified or ineligible? There IS a difference, although a large majority of the remarks posted at OC are directed more at qualification rather than eligibility.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:46 pm 
I think the terms are used interchangeably. I do it myself sometimes. I feel sorry for many of them. I think Linda is off her rocker, but even Curmudgeon shows flashes of sanity from time to time. :lol:


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 237
mari wrote:
Quote:
Berg Fighting On
3 Pending Lawsuits

to Expose Obama for "not" being Constitutionally

"qualified/eligible" to be President


WTF is it with Berg and these stupid quote marks? Is "not" eligible any different than not eligible?


I think Berg is, in his own Freudian slip kind of way, telling us what he already knows.

Taken from a site detailing how to use quotes...

Quote:
Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

For words used as words themselves or for technical or unfamiliar terms used for the first time (and defined), use italics.

The English word nuance comes from a Middle French word meaning "shades of color."

The use of chiasmus, or the inversion of syntactic elements in parallel phrases, can create rhetorically powerful expressions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:51 pm 
I disagree. It's just his probably insisting that his writing be published as is. It's the same phenomenon you see on grocery store signs. People use those quotes to emphasize, because they don't know any better. They should be using bold or italic, of course. It's just rank incompetence. He probably says to his drones, "No changes."
As an editor, I am quite familiar with this.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 237
tanarg wrote:
I disagree. It's just his probably insisting that his writing be published as is. It's the same phenomenon you see on grocery store signs. People use those quote to emphasize, because they don't know any better. They should be using bold or italic, of course. It's just rank incompetence. He probably says to his drones, "No changes."


:lol: :lol:

I would agree with you completely Tanarg however I preferred not to use the word "incompetent" as it seems to bring a lot of frustration to those that support berg. I know some don't care and prefer to create that frustration but I wanted to be a little nice about it. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:44 pm 
Brian wrote:
tanarg wrote:
I disagree. It's just his probably insisting that his writing be published as is. It's the same phenomenon you see on grocery store signs. People use those quote to emphasize, because they don't know any better. They should be using bold or italic, of course. It's just rank incompetence. He probably says to his drones, "No changes."


:lol: :lol:

I would agree with you completely Tanarg however I preferred not to use the word "incompetent" as it seems to bring a lot of frustration to those that support berg. I know some don't care and prefer to create that frustration but I wanted to be a little nice about it. :mrgreen:


Oops. :roll: I don't consider him completely incompetent. I hope that helps, but if you want to edit my post, be my guest.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:14 pm
Posts: 858
Location: 45.508420, -122.714760
Quote:
Smithereens --
Thanks, but you contributed the "Obama" brief, and not "Berg's".
I'm missing the fun of reading Dr. Seuss (apologies to the good Dr.)

Yes, I submitted the pdf for the latest brief from Obama's team - so you didn't have to use PACER.

If you want Berg's brief of Jan 20, it's on Berg's site:

http://www.obamacrimes.us/Court%20documents%20and%20pdf/Berg%20Appeal%20w%203rd%20Circuit%20via%20Pacer%2001%2020%2009.pdf
:|

_________________
Image How many Birfers does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: None - Birfers are always in the dark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:48 pm 
Just a heads up for those watching PACER. I believe that Berg's Reply Brief in the 3rd Circuit Appeal is due tomorrow.

Per the Briefing Schedule, his reply is due 20 days after service of Appellee's Briefs, which was Feb. 19. By my calculations, 20 days from Feb. 19th is March 11 - i.e., tomorrow.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
Tes wrote:
Just a heads up for those watching PACER. I believe that Berg's Reply Brief in the 3rd Circuit Appeal is due tomorrow.

Per the Briefing Schedule, his reply is due 20 days after service of Appellee's Briefs, which was Feb. 19. By my calculations, 20 days from Feb. 19th is March 11 - i.e., tomorrow.


Just FYI, I am listening to Berg on blogspotradio, The Awakening. He just went over the status of Berg v Obama in the 3rd Circuit. He gave his filing date, and then the response date from Obama, and says they are not waiting for the court to decide the case, either schedule oral argument, affirm or deny the appeal, so it would appear he has no plans to file a reply brief. "Maybe" he misspoke and just forgot to mention he'd filed a reply brief already, but it sure didn't sound like it.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:01 am
Posts: 18609
Location: Planet Earth (most the time)
Occupation: I'm not at liberty to say. In other words, I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Thanks realist. I can't seem to get blogspot radio. Appreciate the recap.

_________________
Yes We Can! ~ Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:48 pm
Posts: 83
Oh man, if Berg reads this he'll have Lisa pulling an all-nighter again.

Poor Don's never gonna get any... :lol: :twisted:

_________________
So sayeth the Rooster so say we all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:11 pm 
Amused wrote:
Oh man, if Berg reads this he'll have Lisa pulling an all-nighter again.

Poor Don's never gonna get any... :lol: :twisted:


Any what? Considering she knows about this, and she is ready for starters. Two Lisa and I are only friends? Um you mind explaining this one to me?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
mimi wrote:
Thanks realist. I can't seem to get blogspot radio. Appreciate the recap.


The entire show, about 50 minutes, was a complete rehash of all the same crap: No real BC, adopted in Indonesia, did not naturalize upon his return, name is Soetoro, not only not NBC but illegal alien, AND Berg says (as if all the above is not enough LOL) "I am 1000% (that's correct, folks, not 100, 1000) certain he was born in Kenya."

If that's so, let's see it and stop all this nonsense!!!

The first 10-15 minutes was spent trashing Judge Robertson's ruling and the fact he asked Hemenway to appear to explain why he should not be sanctioned. He did not say Hemenway would appear, rather they will appeal the judge's ruling because it is so "way out there" and "outrageous" (a word he used at least 20 times). He whined about not receiving notice because he was not admitted to practice, whined because he was not just automatically admitted, as he "has been all over the country." One little tidbit was interesting. He said Mr. Hemenway, being an older gentleman DOES NOT HAVE A COMPUTER, and thank goodness they had "bloggers" and "followers" for receiving the information on rulings (I think that means us). :shock:

OH!!! Almost forgot...he also said if just ONE JUDGE will allow discovery, the "game is over for Obama." Give me a friggin' break... He could have been heard in front of Judge Robertson if he felt he had ANY evidence of anything that would make Obama ineligible.

There's an hour of my life I will never get back. :(

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:52 pm
Posts: 1069
Don Houston wrote:
Amused wrote:
Oh man, if Berg reads this he'll have Lisa pulling an all-nighter again.

Poor Don's never gonna get any... :lol: :twisted:


Any what? Considering she knows about this, and she is ready for starters. Two Lisa and I are only friends? Um you mind explaining this one to me?



No, Don. If you don't know, no amount of 'splainin' can help you.

_________________
Q: How many birfers does it take to interpret the Constitution?
A: All of them. Stupidity isn't unconstitutional in America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 8016
Location: HQ Email/Website Hacking Dept, located in the basement of a Liberal-Socialist-Swine Ivory Tower
Occupation: College Instructor; Psychologist
realist wrote:
Tes wrote:
Just a heads up for those watching PACER. I believe that Berg's Reply Brief in the 3rd Circuit Appeal is due tomorrow.

Per the Briefing Schedule, his reply is due 20 days after service of Appellee's Briefs, which was Feb. 19. By my calculations, 20 days from Feb. 19th is March 11 - i.e., tomorrow.


Just FYI, I am listening to Berg on blogspotradio, The Awakening. He just went over the status of Berg v Obama in the 3rd Circuit. He gave his filing date, and then the response date from Obama, and says they are not waiting for the court to decide the case, either schedule oral argument, affirm or deny the appeal, so it would appear he has no plans to file a reply brief. "Maybe" he misspoke and just forgot to mention he'd filed a reply brief already, but it sure didn't sound like it.



What does Berg mean when he says he is "not waiting for the court to decide the case, either schedule oral arguments, affirm or deny the appeal?"

_________________
"I have a Ph.D in horribleness."Dr. Horrible of the Evil League of Evil
"The birthers are particularly good at puting two and two together and coming up with aardvark."Pat Gund


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group