Obama and DNC PDF is here:

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

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.)

Comparing the Obama/DNC brief to Berg's is like comparing Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss.

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.

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.

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...)

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.)

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Thanks realist. I can't seem to get blogspot radio. Appreciate the recap.

Oh man, if Berg reads this he'll have Lisa pulling an all-nighter again.

Poor Don's never gonna get any...

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?

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).

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.

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

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?"