Exactly, you don't need any evidence to sue someone. You need evidence to successfuly sue someone. But as Hawkeye stated, even being sued can ruin your life.

Let's hope the judge dismisses this case fast.

Don't you just love the timing of all of this, just prior to the DNC. Who is Berg aligned with? If he is aligned with the Clintons then the timing makes sense, throw the entire DNC into turmoil, and create the ultimate "what if" game. If BHO is the choice of the DP and just before the election say, it is proven that he is inelgible to become the POTUS, what happens next kiddies????

I've checked around a few other places and the GOP supposedly has a "smoking gun" in regards to this whole situation. Could be an interesting election.....

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...DZlM2Y2OGI0NDM

adding a few more logs in the fire.

Berg is a big Clinton supporter. It's perfect timing for Hillary. Perfect timing for McCain would have been shortly after Obama was nominated.

Looks like the temporary restraining order has been denied, but the case left open until all parties are served. Looking like it might be good timing for McCain after all. Or Hillary can raise the spectre of what could happen and wrangle the nomination after all. Oooooooooooooooooooh, I just loooooooooooove politics:rotfl:

See, living where I do, I've seen the man in action, and it hasn't me impressed one bit.

What scares the most out of me, is BHO's association with Ayers.

The Illinois political landscape is dotted with corruption, nepotism and divisiveness amongst all levels. This is the "battlefield" that BHO received his baptism from, so to speak.

BHO buying a house at under the market value and buying up some extra land for pennies on the dollar to build a deck is not headline news. The person whom he did these deals with, would later go to the federal pen for political corruption practices: business as usual here.

Maybe if he had cut his teeth in politics in another place I might consider him as a viable canidate, but if he gets elected, Chicago politics will be headed for DC. If you think this place has problems now, just wait.

DT: was that last line in your best Charles Nelson Riley voice? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Riots from LA to NY come to mind :yep:

Nah, more like Rip Torn:p:rotfl:

Well...............?



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

"We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

–by Jess Henig, with Joe MillerSources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.

And this....

Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and ordered the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training.

U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the conduct of attorney Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa.

"Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote.

www.law.com

Sigh here we go again. :(

First of all Senator Obama did not buy the house under the market value. He bought it under the first asking price. There is a a huge difference between a houses market value and the asking price. Just ask any realtor.

How many people buy houses for the asking price? Would you pay the owner's first asking price or would you make a counter offer trying to get a better deal. The owners of the house dropped their price 15% which in the housing market is not unheard of. Why did the owner's drop their price? Because Obama was the highest offer they had.

Rita Rezko (not Tony Rezko) paid $625,000 for the adjacent lot. The same party owned both what would become the Obama house/lot and the Rita lot. If you have concerns about why the owner sold the house to Obama for that price, talk to the owner, not Tony Rezko.

Second In 2006, Obama purchased a 10 foot wide strip of the land owned by Rita. For this he paid $104,500. The price Obama paid for the 10 foot strip was above the assessed value of the land area. So much for Rita cutting Obama a deal.

Obama has since stated several times that he regretted buying the strip of land because it might give the impression of impropriety. How paying more for land than it was worth could be perceived as impropriety is hard for me to understand, but clearly, based on your post, you do. However no impropriety has been proven or even alleged by Federal/state prosecutors.

In the end of 2006 Rita sold the property for a net profit of $54,500. not a bad investment for about a year's worth of time. Rita sold the property to an ex business partner of Tony Rezko. Yet another guy who knows a guy weak association.

All this has been out in the open. No cover-ups. No conspiracy.

"The person whom he did these deals with, would later go to the federal pen for political corruption practices: business as usual here."

That is simply inaccurate. Tony Rezko was the one person going to the Pen, Rita Rezko was not. I suppose, if you want to, you can make the argument that a wife and husband are one person, but the law does not agree with that argument.

If you want to involve Tony Rezko in to the deal, I would ask you to submit some evidence indicating this. Guilt by association is a specious argument.

So don't vote for Obama for many reasons. This house deal should not be one of them. It is, in Willies words Much ado about nothing.

About time to get rid of that stupid "has to be born in USA to be president" - rule.

Agreed! I wanna run for office! :|\\

Edit: Get rid if the must be born as citizen rule too. Than I can definitively run for it.

Do other countries have similar requirements for their president/PM/Chancellor/ Grand Pooba?