Well I hope a "streetbeat" cop doesn't walk in my house right now and try to arrest me for selling crack. My stringent denials will surely give away my "guilt"...........
Oh. I take back my previous remark...I'm very very likely smarter than you. Not that it says very much about me, but it seems kind of obvious.
someone correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't the republicans the ones always whining about frivolous lawsuits?
Well he did bring a pillow.......LOL! :eek: Apparently it is a heavy 600 Filll Power European Duck Down Pillow with amazing sound deadening capabilities!
BTW, Jerome Corsi is also currently in Hawaii investigating obama's birth cetificate issue. Separate Jerome Corsi article from his recent visit to kenya........ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324
An observant blogger has noted that there is evidence that the judge in the Berg suit may have had his decision written for him (by guess who?). Apparently when the judge faxed it to Berg it came with a time stamp on the bottom of each page from another fax machine from earlier in the day. In other words it was a fax of a fax. But what makes it even more curious is that the senders name had been deliberately deleted from the time stamp. Now why would the judge who supposedly wrote the decision be sending out a fax of a fax of a decision he supposedly wrote with the name of the first sender deliberately removed? And even more curious is that the links to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records of the case were disabled just prior to the fax being sent. Could it be that the Electronic Records did not yet contain the ruling that was sent out? Why wouldn't it if the judge wrote the decision, presumably on a computer, so the file could easily be uploaded? And even more curious than that is that apparently the Obama campaign had been claiming earlier in the day that there were no longer obstacles in the path to the White House. How could they have known this before the decision was released? And then there is the in-your-face political statement in the footnotes: "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 hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory." What is a political statement that seems to be nothing more than taunting doing in a legal decision? Especially when the judge knows that the vault certificate of live birth has not been vetted, and was the whole reason for the case in the first place! And does this judge not have his staff proof read his decisions (see [sic] in quote)? Well probably not if it is written for him by someone else...