In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................
The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:
"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."
In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.
I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.
But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?
This judge is saying that it is not.
Help me understand...............................................
The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:
"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."
In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.
I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.
But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?
This judge is saying that it is not.
Help me understand...............................................