Berg v. Obama: Clerk Orders Case Submitted to Merits Panel
Attorney Philip J. Berg, the Plaintiff in his Third Circuit Court of Appeals case Berg v. Obama, yesterday had his case referred to a Merits Panel. Below is a posting from FreeRepublic.com regarding the PACER docket:
12/09/2008 Open Document ORDER (SCIRICA, Chief Judge and AMBRO, Circuit Judges) denying Appellant’s Motion an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal. Panel No.: ECO-16. Scirica, Authoring Judge. See Order for complete text. (CH)
12/10/2008 RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (CH)
12/10/2008 Open Document BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Philip J. Berg due on or before 01/20/2009. Appendix due on or before 01/20/2009. (CH)
01/16/2009 Open Document ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from Steve N. Hajjar on behalf of Appellee(s) Federal Election Commission. (SNH)
01/16/2009 Open Document Motion filed by Appellee Fed Election Comm to summarily affirm. Certificate of Service dated 01/16/2009. SEND TO MERITS PANEL.–[Edited 01/28/2009 by CH] (SNH)
01/20/2009 Open Document ELECTRONIC BRIEF with Volume I of Appendix attached on behalf of Appellant Philip J. Berg, filed. Certificate of Service dated 01/20/2009 by email. (PJB)
01/20/2009 Open Document ELECTRONIC APPENDIX on behalf of Appellant Philip J. Berg, filed. Manner of Service: electronic. Certificate of Service dated 01/20/2009. (PJB)
01/27/2009 Open Document Response filed by Appellant Philip J. Berg to Motion for summary action. Certificate of Service dated 01/26/2009. (PJB)
01/28/2009 Open Document CLERK ORDER referring Motion by Appellee Federal Election Commitee For Summary Affirmance to the merits panel. It is noted that Appellant filed his brief and appendix on January 20, 2009, counsel for Appellee Federal Election Committee, is directed to inform this office in writing within seven (7) days from the date of this order if they intend to file a brief or rely on the Motion for Summary Affirmance in lieu of a formal brief, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL. (CH)
02/02/2009 Open Document CLERK ORDER referring the Response of Appellant to Appellee Federal Election Committee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance to the merits panel, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL. (CH) [emphasis from posting]
What does the above mean?…
For starters, take a look at the Internal Operating Procedures of the US 3rd Circuit Appeals Court, specifically chapter 10 (it’s not a long document):
CHAPTER 10. MOTION PRACTICE
10.1 Motion Panels.
A panel is available to receive motions at all times. The chief judge, with the consent of the court, designates standing motions panels (SMPs) to receive from the clerk motions in cases which have not been sent to merits panels. …
10.2.3 Motions on non-emergency matters are distributed to the SMPs as they are complete; i.e., when responses have been filed and any necessary briefing completed. …
10.7 Motions Related to Cases Assigned to Merits Panels.
10.7.1 Motions related to cases assigned to merits panels are generally granted or denied by the presiding judge if they are merely administrative and unrelated to the disposition, unless the presider believes reference to the entire panel is appropriate.
10.7.2 Motions related to scheduling cases for argument are always referred to the entire panel.
There’s more to the process for the applicable Clerk Order than what I’ve shown, above; definitely worth a read if you have a few minutes.
My non-attorney take is that the Clerk has decided (based on the type of case and protocol thereof) to refer Berg’s case to a Merit Panel where, not surprisingly (!), the merits of the case will be considered prior to their being a judgment made (the document goes into more detail on how all of this could transpire: the kind of judgment, the process for making said judgment, etc.).
Does this mean anything in terms of the content of the case? I’m going to say it doesn’t, and instead say this is part of the process. However, I’m sure a number of the lawyer types that have been producing copious amounts of commentary on my blog (thanks for that!) will be happy to extrapolate more judicial theory on this issue.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- Berg v. Obama: FEC Responds to Berg’s Motion for Injunction; UPDATE: No, they didn’t!
- Berg v. Obama: DNC/Obama Responds; FEC Likely Respondent at SCOTUS
- Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case
- Berg v. Obama: Justice Souter Denies Stay of Presidential Election
- Hollister Files Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit; Other “Natural Born Citizen” Interpretations
Agree.Phil doesn’t seem to accept that our system is wholly corrupt.This was self-evident over the past 20 years long before this crisis.It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see we have lost our right to petition for redress of grievances long ago.We can go through the motions,but it is clear from the silence that Scotus and our elected officials do not serve the people anymore,they dictate and rule at will.Barry fighting this instead of being transparent speaks volumes to his guilt.And we don’t have honest courts to prove that conclusively.So,throwing common sense out the window by saying the man is innocent is foolhardy.
It means the Third Circuit Court is following its normal procedure in considering the FEC’s motion to dismiss.
IANAL, but I looked it up.
Here’s a readable explanation, confirming what GeorgetownJD said:
http://www.hjbashman.com/resources-articles-08-12-02.htm
People are mistaken to take this story as good news for Berg. The issue before the merits panel is the FEC’s motion to dismiss, on which Berg can lose his case, but cannot win it.
Bob,
constitution.org is a phenomenal site regarding not just the US Constitution, but other documents from countries from around the world, as well as documents that predate and bring context to the framing of the Constitution.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Sally Hill,
Candidate qualifications are always an issue for anyone in office; length and/or numbers of terms is completely irrelevant to this question.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
Jack I agree with you – obama has the power now – but it’s that apparent power that concerns me. He, obama, had “the power” before he moved into the White House. It’s that “power” that has no checks and balances and unless you are part of that “power” Jack, could adversely impact you. This whole “Play” is so audacious in the way this group spits upon the Constitution proclaiming their “power”.
Jack “Authority” is a whole different/not different subject. Without being qualified pursuant to Article II of the Constitution obama cannot have “Authority”; only “Unauthorized Power” as long as the guns stand behind him.
Jack you appear to have an awareness of Homer’s “Odyssey” suggesting that you read. You further appear to not have as strong of a grasp for the U.S. Constitution. A link that I came upon just a minute ago after having been distracted by the thought of jury nullification which may help you to “grasp” the Constitution is as follows;
http://www.constitution.org/ .
I have not read any of this material. As for the off point distraction of jury nullification here is a link to Georgia v. Brailsford ;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0001_ZO.html
This question may sound defeatest in nature, but I’m just looking down the road.
If/when Obama runs for his second term, is there any way he can then be comepelled to show proof at that point? Or will it be a moot point (so says Obama) because he has already served one term and is no longer a relevant issue?
Jack;
Eligibility to serve as POTUS is a “CORE” principle of the Constitution. If the mob can successfully ignore/preclude/obviate that principle, Vladimir Putin could be your next POTUS.
……And, of course, you can throw out the rest of the Constitution as well…… Goodbye America.
Gordon
Bill,
In reality, while there is nothing to say that a citizen can petition the Judiciary for a “redress of grievances,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that said case holds up to the standards of jurisprudence.
I don’t like the idea that citizens have been deemed in these particular cases as not having the standing to bring a case any more than anyone else does, but I also want the Judiciary to be as painfully fair to everyone as possible.
Here’s the bottom line: Somebody has to show that the President had to have been required to show his birth certificate while campaigning for the presidency and that particular harm would have been the resultant effect if said showing were not to happen. Until anyone can do this without going off into legal theories of “should’a-could’a-would’a,” none of this is going to go anywhere. To compound the problem, there is precious little, if any, law that obligates the candidate to show such evidence.
This may sound painful and make me sound like I’m part of the opposition of eligibility, but I think that there have been more than enough cases having been dismissed based on the above to show that the above is true — and I’m all about getting to the truth.
As I’ve always said, my bet is with State-based statutes and legislation.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
GeorgetownJD,
I can certainly attest that it (obviously, in this most recent case) came from a posting on Dr. Taitz’ blog, whereby said posting is asking the reader to “do the math” to come up with the hypothetical costs of the cases.
I will maintain that until such time as the Defendants in the various cases so move for recovering costs that none of the costs will ever be able to be substantially verified.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
This is NOT just some frivolous law suit, that someone may or may not have “standing”, meaning they may be hurt! We are talking about our CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Every USA Citizen has “STANDING” to bring a law suit against anyone who has breached the Constitution, the judge’s (in my opinion) are blowing smoke (stonewalling) about this “STANDING” , because each and every USA Citizen will be harmed it one way or another, if and when the Constitution is breached. It is written for WE THE PEOPLE = (STANDING) OF THE UNITED STATES = (CITIZEN)! The “STANDING” needs to be CHALLENGED IN COURT!!!!
I believe it was Martin Luther King Jr. that said we should judge a person by their character, NOT by the color of their skin! Barack Obama was elected by the color of his skin, NOT by his CHARACTER!
Source for that $800,000 figure? We have all been looking for that. Please share.
“Merits panel” is used to contrast it with a “motions panel,” which primarily disposes of administrative matters concerning an appeal (such as fees and costs, page limitations, etc.), but does not address the isses of the appeal.
While it is possible for a motions panel to summarily affirm a case (which the FEC did request), referring that type of motion to the merits panel is pretty standard operating procedure, especially since the FEC’s motion reads like an opposition brief in response to Berg’s brief. (Which is why the court asked the FEC to clarify whether it was going to file anything further in response to Berg’s brief.)
After briefing is completed, the next step will be for the merits panel (which consists of three appellate federal judges) to decide whether oral argument is required in this case.
Yes. However, I have grave doubts that Mr. Obama is even a naturalIZED American citizen, let alone a natural one. I firmly believe he is neither.
If this is true, then it’s another step in the right direction.
David Briggs,
I do believe you’re quoting attorney Phil Berg; I’m Phil in GA, “right side” Phil, Phil @ therightsideoflife.com
Thanks for the comment anyway,
-Phil
David Briggs,
I’ve covered this in a previous post.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
US Army Major signs on as plaintiff for Dr. Orly Taitz… RE: Obama’s Eligibility to Hold Office
— On Sun, 2/1/09, Stefan Cook wrote:
From: Stefan Cook
Subject: ATTORNEY HAFFEY REFERRED
To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2009, 6:40 AM
Dear Attorney Orly,
My name is Major Stefan F. Cook. I am an officer in the Army Reserve of the United States of America and understand that you are heading up a class action suite to request that Barack Obama show he meets the Constitutional qualifications to be our Commander In Chief. As an officer in the U.S. Army, I have the right to know that I am following the lawful orders from a Constitutionally qualified Commander In Chief.
I would like to sign on as a participating plaintiff in this class action.
Please advise.
V/R
STEFAN F. COOK
MAJ, EN, US ARMY
Major Cook went on to send Dr. Taitz a signed, notarized consent form authorizing her to name him as a plaintiff in this suit.
As Phil has stated…EVERY SOLDIER BEING ASKED BY OBAMA TO POSSIBLY LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR THIS COUNTRY HAD TO PROVE IDENTITY TO THE GOVERNMENT.
NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO POST A PHOTOCOPY OF A CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH TO A WEBSITE, HIRE FACTCHECK.ORG TO CHECK IT, AND THEN HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO BACK OFF.
Obama owes these men who are willing to die for us the courtesy of proving who he is under at least as stringent proof requirements as they have been ordered to subject themselves to. Shouldn’t the commander in chief be held to a higher standard of proof, not a lesser one, especially when the commander in chief was a British/Kenyan dual national at birth?
Phil, I hope you don’t mind my quoting you. I, being a disabled veteran myself, just happen to strongly agree.
Leo,
There are several areas in which the usuper does not meet the NBC requirement. He is at best a naturalized citizen and at worst an illegal alien.
Yes, you are absolutely right. And all the foot stomping and breath holding and charges that democracy is dead and the judges are criminals will not cure a procedurally infirm case, however righteous the intention of the person who signed the pleadings. Standing becomes an issue for different reasons, depending on the underlying legal cause of action, and whether the case is brought in either federal or state court. And satisfying the requirements of standing to bring one type of case does not necessarily confer standing to bring another; and without a legal cause of action, standing is irrelevant, anyway.
Any case seeking a vetting of BO as to NBC status based on the underlying cause of action of mandamus, whether in state or federal court, was doomed to fail. No provision of any existing federal or state law requires any government actor to vet the candidate from the major political party as to Constitutional eligibility. The court – the judicial branch – will not order state officials – the executive branch – to perform a ministerial function of the job where the only evidence Plaintiff offers that such duty exists is a claim that, the official swore to uphold the Constitution.
Rather, here’s how mandamus could apply in future situations. Say, the law reads, the S of S shall (not may) vet the candidate for POTUS submitted by the major political party as to status as a NBC, including but not limited to obtaining an authentic Birth Certificate, as well as an unbroken chronology of residences from birth until the present. But say, the S of S merely accepted the word of the party that their candidate is a NBC, and put his name on the general election ballot. A pledged delegate for another candidate; or a candidate from another party, could go into court with a petition for mandamus, asking the court to order the S of S to carry out her ministerial duty to vet the candidate. And, unless barred by some other provision in the law, for example, laches, that is, you waited too long to bring the suit; or administrative procedures act, that is, you had to ask the S of S to do her job, first, before going into court; the court would likely grant the petition.
Now, back to perfecting my lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi, in her role as the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. (By the way, Congress has immunity against suit for job-related functions. It’s called sovereign immunity. So, again, while people might think they are accomplishing something by bringing yet another suit, they aren’t. In fact, they are just making it harder for the rest of us who know what we are doing.)(“By 1953 the U.S. Supreme Court had drawn distinctions under the Tort Claims Act between tortious acts committed by the government at the planning or policy-making stage and those committed at the operational level. In Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S. Ct. 956, 97 L. Ed. 1427 (1953), the Supreme Court held that the Tort Claims Act did not waive sovereign immunity as to tortious acts committed at the planning stage; immunity applied only to torts committed at the operational stage.”)
Yes, CITIZENS.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it’s a DUCK.
Phil… as far as I’m concerned Obama’s refusal to produce a valid birth certificate is, in itself, an admission of guilt. The sealing of all related documents only adds to this admission. Why else would he have spent in excess of $800,000.00 on attorneys fees to keep all these documents secret?? Maybe not found guilty in a court of law (yet) but guilty just the same.
What I’m concerned with is the Constitution of the United States of America!! I’m concerned that an usurper and fraud is in an office that he is not constitutionally qualified to hold. I’m concerned with the constitutional crisis that is looming large on the horizon.
It’s obvious that Obama knows what he’s doing… he’s trying his best to lead us down a road that leads to socialism. He’s planning to re-write our Constitution.
If YOU’RE not concerned, Jack, you’re in the wrong forum.
WND: Dr. Taitz to Request Records of Private SCOTUS Meeting with Obama… IMPORTANT!!!
WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Keyes v. Bowen, Keyes v. Obama and Lightfoot v. Bowen, will soon be filing a motion to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to compel him to produce records of a private meeting that 8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices had with then-President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President-Elect Joe Biden:
But of the Supreme Court’s actions now may become the subject of further questions, because Obama visited with the justices in their private chambers in a meeting closed to the public just before his inauguration. Taitz said a defendant in a legal action meeting with the judges who are deciding the case without have a representative from the other side is unprecedented – and unacceptable.
“I will file a motion to the chief justice to compel the records of this private meeting, that was held only a few days before my case was supposed to be heard,” Taitz said in a posting on her website.
“I would like to get information about what was discussed,” she told WND in an interview. “It’s unheard of for the Supreme Court to meet with [one] party when a case is pending.”
Multiple reports confirmed Obama met in private with eight of the nine justices. Justice Samuel Alito was absent.
The meeting, wrote Taitz, was “only a few days before my case was supposed to be heard, where the plaintiffs state that Mr. Soetoro-Obama is illegitimate for [the] presidency due to the fact that his father was a foreign subject and there is no evidence that Mr. Obama was really born in Hawaii, since the state of Hawaii statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian certification of live birth and such certification can be obtained based on an affidavit of one relative only.” …
“We believe that Mr. Obama has spent over $800,000 on numerous attorneys to keep his original birth certificate sealed, because the original vault birth certificate does not provide any corroborating evidence from any hospital about him being born there,” Taitz said.
“Additionally, Mr. Obama has immigrated to Indonesia as a child with his mother and stepfather Lolo Soetoro and his school records from Indonesia show his legal name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia,” she said.
Taitz said the meeting isn’t the only suspicious activity at the Supreme Court. One day after Obama’s inauguration, all of the docketing information about her case suddenly was deleted from the court’s website.
While it eventually was restored, there has been no explanation of the deletion, she said.
“I will be demanding from the Chief Justice John Roberts an immediate full investigation as to how the information about a case of national and world importance … disappeared from the docket of the Supreme Court,” she said.
Da verg:
Right as rain you are in your points. Now living in CA and the state as of yesterday could not pay it bills. And the school system is a joke here in southern,CA. I will be taking my sons out of the school system this coming year.
I told my congressman Dana R that CA would be bankrupt within two years and that was eight months ago. I was only off by 16 months.
And we know from history as CA goes so does the rest of the United States.
JBH
I agree tell that one Blago in ILL.
JBH
MIDDLE CLASS GUY,
As GeorgetownJD points out — and as I also suspected — this is simply a part of the circuit process for deciding whether or not to move forward with the case.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I live in Missouri also. I e-mailed Kit Bond back in December. He did not respond. Maybe we are lucky that he has announced that he will not run in 2010. Perhaps the lack of response was better than the irrational response I got from Claire McCaskill.
OK, so Berg’s case has been sent to the Merits panel. What happens next? Does anyone know what he next step in the procedure is?
Thanks, Ken
Senator Bond’s First Assistant is correct, in a sense, in that it is the question of Barack Obama’s Father’s citizenship at the time of Barack’s birth that is the most important question. Both parents must be citizens of the US at the time of the birth of the child for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. He could have been born in Afghanistan and it would not matter as much as his Father’s citizenship.
I telephoned Sen Bond’s office, I am a Missouri resident. I asked the First Asst to the Sen why Senator Bond did not yell at the top of his voice as to the birth hospital and country Obama was born. The First Asst responded; “THE PLACE OF BIRTH IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE.” I reminded him of the Constitution of natural born. The First Asst responded; “THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE.”
How ironic that Phil is reminding Heavy that all “American citizens” are innocent until proven guilty. I had a chuckle on that one.
Heavy,
I will remind you that all American citizens are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
-Phil
This clown only has the power that the media gives him. He is NOT President, plain and simple. The question is what pennance will you sick, twisted libs have to do to for voting for your messiah.
I’m serious. He has commited TREASON and so have all the minions who voted for him. This is going to get very ugly and rightly so.
I will be very happy the day they haul his stupid ass out of the Oval office in handcuffs!
It means the FEC’s motion and Berg’s response to FEC’s motion were sent to the three judges who are assigned to the case.
This is routine and ministerial. It does not mean anyone at the court has determined there is merit to Berg’s case. Every appellate case — and that means EVERY CASE — is assigned to a merits panel. Cases in the circuit courts are heard and decided by three-judge panels. “Referral” means that pleadings were sent to chambers.
Hello All:
Have been involved in this sad state of affairs since August of last year. And since the person elected has sealed his records for all to see that did vote for him I have the following questions and want to see it all.
1. Long Form Original Birth Certificate (not live birth form)
2. INS documents entering back into the US from Indoensia
3. Passports all (From US to Pakistan)
4. College records Registration, High school
5. Document on name change from Barry to Obama
6. Selective Service Registration
7. Since our elected person has told the people that did vote for him to shove it and the Constitution. I now also want to see where he took his first bowel movement if in fact he was born in HI. Which legally know one knows for sure, but what he has put on his website has been found to be a forgery.
I have many more questions but these are just a few to start a conversation.
JBH
It’s like this, while discussing the stimulus package with a friend he went on to say that Bush and Cheney lined their pockets and the republicans did the same. My reply to him was you are exactly right, but because of that, does that mean it’s the democrats turn to do the same, because the previous administration did it. Answer NO. The American people have been a sleeping giant while ALL the politicians have been raping and pilaging. Barack Obama has provided us with change. He took a sleeping giant and shook him violently and we now have awakened to this brutality. I also believe that the executive order that Bushed signed on 1-16-09 (if still in effect) should be used to have the IRS audit every person in the goverment starting at the top. If you just look at the two tax cheats vs. the number that are supposed to serve ALL of us you can bet your sweet ass they aint the only two. Investigate them all I say and hang the guilty ones, enough is enough.I told my friend who wants to blame Bush for everything this aint [edit] it’s [edit] and I’m sick of it.
It seems by the polls that others don’t seem to think he knows what he is doing. I think it was down to 53% maybe lower aproval rating and definatley dropping. A couple of more tax cheats should seal the deal.
Jack we are concerned. Fraud is a big concern.
JAck
please clarify, which president you are talking about, the last president’s signed bills, via Congress legislation have been taken to task. Some were upheld by the courts, and some were not. Be specific. The executive branch, under the old president at least had a legal US natural born citizen at it’s helm. Furthermore the left raised a vicious, lie filled, bush bashing campaign unprecedented in history. The lame stream media is brain washing our citizens, our public school system is brain washing our system. You want something to attack? Start there. The Bush adm. has been kept honest by court system? IMHO.
Shouldn’t you guys be more concerned whether Obama knows what he is doing than anything else. He has power now. The last President left the kitchen in a shambles and you guys could care less. By not attacking his actions you are marginalizing yourselves.
And if you did attack on what grounds – what principles would you use to attest to your wisdom and case for justice – and truth arete, aletheia and dike (in the Greek).
THE ONE held a SECRET meeting with 8 SCOTUS justices while cases against him were pending. The plaintiff(s) were not represented in this meeting. This is ILLEGAL! The justices are on the take.
da verg,
It was “Judge Surrick,” for the record.
Also, cases being tossed doesn’t set precedent, so all earlier cases that got tossed on technicalities only validates the fact that the judge in any given case didn’t think the Plaintiff(s) had standing or what not. Precedent gets set, as far as I know, when a case is actually heard on its merits and a decision is rendered; see also stare decisis.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
standing and damage have to be shown to hear a case
so far, the SC , has rightfully denied these cases because the standing and damages were not fully indicated by the plaintiffs, IMHO. Furthermore, the stays in many cases extended beyond the branches of government asking the SC to do things that the Constitution says is Congress’s responsibility.
Furthermore there are very little clear cut guidelines as who is responsible for vetting the eligibility question. OBAMA through Jedge Serrick hit it on the head, and obviously sold his position, when he stated as much and grabbed onto this “loop hole” in the system which is disingenious because one has to ask why did he even go there in the first place.
Now that OBAMA is signing things, the cases should be able to demonstrate standing and damages.
Furthermore, the KEYES case IMHO has merit because he has standing and damages. If this case is denied then we should all be outraged, but I haven’t seen the merits of the case. There could be yet again, another technical to get the case tossed out. It seems to be lingering in the CA court system for some reason. I thought this case was the better between the Lightfoot case and Keyes case.
The problem I have now is that some of these spurious cases are threatening the really good ones, these earlier cases could be detrimental in that OBAMA is using them as proof because they were dismissed. Again a disingenuous tactic, because he failes to list WHY they were dismissed in the first place without looking at the details.
Just my opinion, and I know alot of people don’t agree with it. They would say, hey the SC has the power to do this or that. But they didn’t, so far, act. Part of this I beleive has to do with ego of Roberts , wanting to “high or hell water” to get his first swearing in. And he botched it up, too.
Regrettably, I don’t think SCOTUS will ever hear a case. Why would they now that Justice Roberts has sworn in the President? For him to say that he had no idea Obama was not a NBC BEFORE swearing him in, just wouldn’t fly. If they do hear a case, it will be because SCOTUS answers to a higher authority (“cult protectorate” as Leo calls it) who will instruct them to hear a case with at least a 5-4 predetermined decision in favor of Obama. This way the Obotters can say that “natural born citizen” had its day in court, and the anti Obama conspirators are made to look like fools.
I would hope that the Obama camp realizes they too will answer to a higher authority. Truth, justice and righteousness must prevail.
Rebel,
This particular action isn’t a denial; it’s a referral.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I can’t believe these justices are denying all these cases. I can’t believe that someone running our country has so much to hide and since he is our employee not vice versa shouldn’t we have the right to know all about him? Apparently not. When they say money talks that is no lie as the upsuber bought his way into the WH and continues to pay to stay in there. Just look at the people he is appointing and sticking by them when they are tax evaders. The MSM would be raking Bush over the coals if he appointed people like that.
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3371 [...]
Good Morning!
Please Lawyer friends tell us what this means! I’m so tired of seeing these cases get denied! I’m a law abiding, mortgage paying, TAX paying,bill paying citizen who’s trying to raise my kids to be the same! I wish I could DO something to help! Maybe walk up to Chief Justice Roberts and say “What are you thinking?!”.
. Ok, just kidding. But I’m so frustrated with all of this I can’t imagine how Phil Berg and others must feel!
Ok, I’m done venting now. Enjoy your day!
And if you have any answers to what is happening with Berg’s case, please share.
Thanks so much!
Debbie
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3371 [...]