Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Monday; Docket Updates
According to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Term Court Orders page, the Court’s disposition of Berg v. Obama is likely not to happen until Monday, January 12, as the current Miscellaneous Order contains no reference to it.
As Jeff notes, while some may attach an entirely negative connotation to today’s absence of a mention of the case, please keep in mind the following from the same Orders page:
The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but “miscellaneous” orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day. [emphasis mine]
We will simply have to wait and see exactly how the Court decides to come down on Berg’s case.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Update: A commenter has provided links to two dockets showing up for Berg v. Obama:
- 08-570: Original docket for the petition for a writ of certiorari; tracks case history at SCOTUS
- 08A505: Additional docket for the petition to either (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of said vote; picks up from December 8, 2008
It is possible that Philip Berg will comment on this docket update during the Mark McGrew Radio Show this evening.
Update: Phil Berg has a presser about there being no news from the Supreme Court concerning his case as of January 9, 2009.
-Phil
DIV,
I have a page with what is known to be a current listing of eligibility lawsuits on the top bar of my site, entitled “Eligibility Lawsuits.” Also, “State Initiatives” tracks what’s going on — that I know of — thus far at the State level for advocating accountability in the electoral process.
The truth of the matter — and the whole reason why I and others began blogging — is that no candidate for the presidency is currently legally obligated to show any kind of documentation substantiating their eligibility; as blogger Justin Riggs has phenomenally documented at yourfellowcitizen.com, the only thing a nominee for the presidency must do is sign a self-ascribing document wherein they claim they’re eligible. That’s as far as it goes.
This is why it’s so important that long-term reform be brought to the fore, especially at the State level, for rectifying this situation, going forward.
Thanks for the comments,
-Phil
Would someone PLEASE answer a few questions for me?? The constitution states that “anyone” has to be an American born citizen to run for president…How or why was Obama even allowed
to run on the ticket without showing this proof??
Is it true that several states have suites filed against Obama?? Is it true that these states, as of now, have not turned their electoral votes in, and if not can they refuse to turn them in if Obama does not show proof that he is an American born citizen?
The way I see it Obama would never voluntary step down, he would have to be forced out. AND what then??
AND my big question is, “How has something this big been kept from the media?” “WHO HAS THIS KIND OF POWER to keep something this big from the media?” If this were any thing or anyone else it would be all over ever TV station, radio station, ever newspaper, and people would even be standing on street corners. WE, AS CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE!! WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS?? Makes me wonder, as citizens, if we have anything to say about anything anymore? Where is America headed???
PLEASE GOD, BLESS AMERICA!!
Reality Check,
As I mentioned to you in a previous comment, Berg’s case isn’t about a writ of Certiorari today; it is about an injunction.
Also, for all of your talk about questioning the rationality of those of us who question someone’s eligibility to be President, I do find it rather disappointing that you would go about using an “ad hominem,” such as, “From here out they should be branded as tin foil hatters,” as the basis for your opposing argument. I honestly was expecting significantly better from you.
A little disingenuous on your part, don’t you think? In other words, at least have the creativity to come up with a logical and rational reason for why someone shouldn’t question another’s eligibility.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
The latest Berg case was denied today, 1/16. I won’t be announced until 1/21 but rest assured, it will be denied; it would have been on the list of writs of cert today if it had been accepted. Don’t pay any attention to all the unfounded biased speculation that the SCOTUS is waiting until after the inauguration to accept one of these cases. It is over for the COLB folks. From here out they should be branded as tin foil hatters.
DCL:
Millions of people that voted for BO are now asking the same questions that didn’t vote for him.
Just a couple of simple question as:
Original Birth Certificate
Passports
When did you change your name back?
Elementary,middle,high school, college records
How did you re enter back into the US?
Whom vetted you and what documentation was used since everything has been sealed from the people that have elected you?
I have many more question but I figured I was just start with the easy ones.
JBH
Lightfoot is conferenced on the 23rd meaning there we won’t find out until then.
Tex,
That quote to which you refer was in reference to Mr. Berg’s first Conference. I’ll be posting sometime tomorrow about the results or delay from his second Conference.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
“According to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Term Court Orders page, the Court’s disposition of Berg v. Obama is likely not to happen until Monday,”
Monday is a Holiday, do you think they will still announce or wait for Tuesday?
Tex-
Next case please. Berg was denied according to SCOTUS orders release on 1/12/2009.
Next case please. So far not one of these cases as gotten past a judge in any court in the US. There is another one with the name Lightfoot that will be de denied in the Cert Conference on 1/21/2009. I
You ignore the obvious. If little O renounced his citizenship, via a legal act of his adopted father. Then there would be no dual citizenship.
We know O was an indonesian citizen, from his school records in jakarta. Therefore your citation of Indonesian law proves he gave up US citizenship.
I believe too, that in islamic countries a boy of 8 is considered an adult and capable of acts such as this.
Unfortunately, the Obama people know that they have committed criminal acts and cannot expose them-so they wont unless forced to. They have public opinion on their side and the “officials” have the excuse that the “public has spoken” so they have political cover even to the extent of the certification of the vote-Until the public opinion is turned against them-which may occur in the future as some other blunder occurs to tarnish the image of the chosen one-then all of a sudden a document will appear to expose it all-until then-there is going to be cover up after cover up-the Sup Ct. has been criticized in the past for taking the election away and they are going to be certain not to do that again-so chances are not great that they will do anything-especially if J. Roberts has already agreed to swear him in-dont you think he would find an excuse-to not do it-if he thought they were going to be caught up in the middle of a Constitutional issue with him.
Read “The Law Of Nations” for a start. The Supreme Court has relied upon this text as recently as March 2008. It clearly defines natural born citizen.
I refer you to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
It is explained there very well, for anyone willing to read it (which I estimate to be a very low percentage of the American population). Perhaps when this is all over, you will overhaul your education system (I wish we would too). They say ignorance is bliss – I argue that it may well be bliss in the short term, but it certainly will not be in the long term.
Open a book once in a while. Read your Constitution! It’s all there in black and white and it is your job to teach your children. That document protects yours and theres freedoms. Without it there is no protection.
Maybe a slot on TV should teach Constitutional law rather than concentrate on Pop Idol and other such ****.
And btw, is it not obviously already that Obama represents more of the same! Even the mainstream has got that right. Look at his appointments… look at his policies… and look at his lies! They’re everywhere – just open a paper.
Did the voters have the full facts? No.
When the voters questioned whether he was eligible, and requested proof, what were they told? **** off pretty much. No “standing”.
You here that? You don’t have the right as an American citizen to ask if he is eligible. I’m English, and effectively it appears I could run for President and you wouldn’t even query it… and if you did query it I could say I’m eligible and that owuld be sufficient. Does this make sense to you? Roger Calero – on the ballot, but not even a citizen! Your level of intelligence, or lack thereof, is astounding.
The media did their part – made it quite clear to all who cannot or will not read any of the background, that he is eligible.. in their opinion. I like you analogy regarding Saddam Hussein, and if he lived in a AMerica and had a child then said child could be President. That scenario, the same as this one you are facing, is exactly what the Framers were attempting to prevent – Foreign Interest in control – hence the distinction between requirement: citizenship is required to hold a governmental position, but natural born citizenship for the position of president. The two terms are not different just for fun.
Reality check – have you actually read any of the lawsuits through? Or are you another regurgitating pleb unable to think for himself? When this comes out you are going to feel mighty stupid my friend.
Born in the usa or not he is NOT Constitutionally eligible. For the “proof” you are after, read Donofrio’s blog end-to-end. It is conclusive. I’m not even American and am commenting from overseas as an impartial. It is painful for me watching this – watching millions of people be fooled, because they haven’t the intelligence to investigate the matter themselves and allow their government to spoon feed them in every way. I appreciate that the media is to blame also, and clearly a whole new journalistic approach is required (blogging) since the mainstream is now controlled. The mainstream, congress, and scotus, all seem to sing sing from the same song sheet, and do not operate in the interests of the public, only themselves. So, I’ll tell you where you dont live… you dont live in the land of the free. If you’re not careful it wont be America either soon enough as they are destroying your country from within. It’s sickening tbh.
And on that note, here’s a pic of the Obama family new hypo-allergenic lap dog. Please welcome him to the White House.
(I would make some comment about dogs looking like their owners, but perhaps it wouldn’t be prudent…)
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k36d1274281.jpg
Oh, and by the way, who cares what they taught in 1963? The liberals already had a grip on the public school system by then.
The answer is “NO.” You are neglecting one fact. The GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. If the framers intended for everyone to be eligible ultimately to run for POTUS, they would NOT have written a grandfather clause at all, there would have been no reason to differentiate between themselves and the rest of the future population.