R. Barclay Surrick

His presentation is to be very fair. However, look behind the scenes. He plays with a double edged sword. He will tell you that he did not do something extremely innocently. Follow the paper trail, the dirty deed comes directly from him. He isn't smart enough not to leave a trace of a peper trail. He and the court directly above him are in cahoots, hospitals (because of power. Trust me, w hen they don't want you on the planet they get rid of you and all you can do is watch yourself die and love those around you as much as you can....

Judge Barclay Surrick is a very good Judge. He is Fair and he listens to you, he understands what is going on in the world today!!! We need more Judges like him. HE CHANGED MY LIFE!!!!!!

Took FOREVER (a year and a half) to issue a ruling on a MTD but his ruling was excellent (25 page opinion) when he did. Very well reasoned, fair, experienced. Just takes forever to get anything done.

It once took me over 2 1/2 years to get him to issue an opinion in a non-jury case, and only after I aksed for assistance from both the Clerk of Court and the President Judge did an Opinion eventually get sent out. A disgrace

Well regarded -- except, apparently, by the crazies on the extreme right.

Judge Surrick is typical of the attitude of the Federal judiciary towards "We the People:" by the courts, for the courts, and of the courts - Americans need not apply. It is obvious that the Federal courts are not designed to protect the average American. They are corporate in nature and are only designed to protect government and big corporations. The Federal courts are a total waste of time in this country, as are the state courts. "We the People" need to take back the grand juries (which were usurped from us in 1946 by the prosecutors' associations). Grand juries could be empanelled by "We the People" when it was found that judges and other officials were violating the law. The grand jury kept a stringent check on the courts, the executive and even the legislative branches of government. Grand juries were the last bastion against corrupt, incompetent, dishonest and tyrannical Federal and state judges and other public officials. Plus, the grand jury was designed to control the budgets of the counties and the states. Once grand juries were usurped by the prosecutor/district attorney associations, those two responsibilities were removed from the people. We now have seen the destruction it has caused this country, in its social fabric and financial stability. It's time to take back the grand juries, or start our own parallel to the corporate grand juries run by the corporate government. For those that aren't savvy, the United States is defined as a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15)), and the states, municipalities and other instrumentalities are subdivisons thereunder. So, any Federal judge that can be rated, is to be rated as compromised by the government and big business and has significant unconstitutional conflicts of interests wherein they cannot sit on most cases because they have financial interests in most of those cases they are involved with.

Having read J. Surrick's lengthy opinion in Berg v Obama, I find it well reasoned and consistent with the law. Standing is well recognized as a constitutional minimum requirement for bringing suit. To have standing, a plaintiff must satisfy a three part test: (1) There must be an injury in fact -- a deprivation of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and is actual or imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical. (2) There must be a direct causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct that can be traced to the actions of the defendant and not to some other third party. (3) A favorable decision must be likely to redress the complained-of injury. It has long been established that an individual citizen does NOT have standing to bring an action that claims harm to all citizens from some alleged violation of the Constitution, since the harm is not particularized. If the plaintiff is suffering an alleged injury that is no different than the public at large, then the plaintiff does not have standing. While this concept is long-standing, recent decisions arising out of the political arena are instructive: In Jones v. Bush the court (in 2000) held that individual voters did not have standing to seek injunctive relief alleging a violation of the Twelfth Amendment (since both Bush and Chaney were alleged to be citizens of Texas, and thus members of the Electoral College from Texas could not vote for both of them as it would violate the 12th Amendment). The plaintiffs claimed that their status as voters and citizens was sufficient to confer standing. The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs' alleged harm was not particularized and that they, therefore, did not have standing. In Becker v. FEC, the court (in 2000) dismissed a suit by supporters of Ralph Nader, because they did not have standing to challenge the FEC's debate regulations that prevented Nader from participating in the presidential

The only document showing Obama's birth certificate is on a website. If it is valid, why did he not simply show it to the court instead of filing for a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss. If he had proof, he should have provided it to the court, and this would have been over back in August.

Someone has stated that Obama has provided his birth certificate. No, what he has provided is a copy of the birth registration. There is a difference. What he should be providing is the long form, which shows the full name of the mother, the race, the origin, the full name of the father, the race, the origin. It should state the place of birth, including the name of the hospital. I worked for a major life insurance company, and often requested such documents. Hopefully, the U. S. Supreme Court will take this and give it a thorough examination, and then make a ruling. As it is right now, this election will go down in history as not only the most expensive, but also as the one with the most fraud. It will make the 2000 election look like child's play.

I think this should be looked into. I'm just a ordinary citizen but I am asked to prove who I am all the time. Here we have a man running for President of the United States who apparently does not have to prove that he is a U.S. citizen. This whole issue has produced very negative PR for Obama. If he has a legitimate birth certificate, why won't he just produce it and put this whole issue to bed?

In the case of Berg v. Obama, the judge ruled on the standing case law. One would expect him to raise the issue of the common sense of the law. As in Roe v. Wade, there comes a time when a judge needs to consider the good of the people. As in this case, the judge should have admonished the DNC and Senator Obama for not providing good faith discovery of the information. Why drag on this lawsuit? What is behind the litigation here? Why not come forward with the basics? Rather, the judge admonished Mr. Berg for speaking on behalf of the people.

This situation is extremely outrageous. We deserve to know the truth about Senator Obama's birth and we need to know immediately who has the standing to question his eligibility before this issue becomes a constitutional crisis after the election. I am extremely disappointed with this dismissal.

With the election so close, this judge should have demanded that Senator Obama present his vaulted birth certificate as Senator McCain did. There are too many questions about where he was born. If he's discovered not to be a natural born citizen after the elections, there will be a constitutional crisis. America was embarrassed enough after the 2000 elections.

I must say I am saddened that this judge denied the American people the right to see verification that Senator Obama is indeed eligible to become Commander in Chief. The people of this country cannot even get a driver's license without an original birth certificate. We require no less than that from a potential President. I am not a firm believer that Senator Obama is not eligible, but the denial of these records for the people is despicable at best, criminal at worst. The citizens of this country have rights that supercede any one man's opinion. If the Senator has already provided these documents, then it is long overdue that those be made public. Dragging this out is suspicious. If this is not an issue, why did the Senator's campaign deem it important enough to post a digital copy of his certificate online, but failed to provide an original to the court? These are legitimate questions, and the best way to shut everyone up is provide what we have the right to see.

Sorry if I make the average rating here credible, but I suddenly felt like "the silent majority" here. Feels great, actually!

Now ask yourself if you were Obama and you had such a lawsuit filed against you, how would you respond? A Provide the court with the three documents in question and go back to shaking hands, making promises and smiling for the cameras. B. Provide images of one of the documents to a friendly website to post, but not to the court. C. Ignore the request, then make a motion to dismiss the case, in lieu of providing the proof. D. In the meantime, quietly, post a notice at your website, FighttheSmears.com that you had dual citizenship with Kenya. E. Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case. F. File a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08, thereby putting the matter off until–hopefully–after the election. Time’s up. What do you do? Most readers sensibly chose A.

Oh, my. I see the right wing religious crazies have come out in force. There's no telling what will come out from under the rocks, is there?

Sorry to see that this system is being abused by the acolytes of Berg who are insane with hate after the dismissal of the frivolous lawsuit against Obama.

When "the people" are judged to "not have standing" on a constitutional matter, it appears that a government "of the people, for the people and by the people" is "just words". In this case, the burden of proof falls squarely on the defendant. The defendant is seeking a position that has constitutional requirements and absolute proof of those requirements has not been presented.

There are a batch of trolls upset because this judge didn't buy into a badly written lawsuit cut and pasted from lunatic websites. The judge did the right thing in dismissing a case with no validity that was wasting the court's valuable time. And the trolls, rather than gnashing their teeth and wailing because a bad lawsuit was dismissed, should be glad that we are a nation of laws for everyone, and that the rule of law is still "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until proven innocent."