According to the Repubx blog (a hat-tip to TheObamaFile.com as well), Philip Berg, Plaintiff and attorney in Berg v. Obama, along with criminal investigator Paul Andrew Mitchell, officially served the following subpoena with the Kenyan Consulate General in Los Angeles, CA.
The document shows that it was received on September 9, 2009 and Messrs. Berg and Mitchell expect a response by October 15, assuming that the Consulate doesn’t make a motion to quash:
The RepubX posting includes the delivery instructions for the above.
Here is Mr. Mitchell’s Notice of Intent to Serve:
TO: Hon. M. Nyambura Kamau
Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles
Park Mile Plaza, Mezzanine Floor
4801 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 90010
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
DATE: August 2, 2009 A.D.
SUBJECT: intervention by United States ex rel. in
Berg v. Obama et al., Third Circuit Appeal No. 08-4443
Greetings Honorable Consul General:
My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:
Please be advised that newly found evidence renders it appropriate formally to serve your good offices with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, duly issued by the District Court of the United States for the Central District of California.
The purpose of this SUBPOENA will be to command your good offices to produce and permit inspection and copying of an authentic original of the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 A.D., at Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa, Republic of Kenya.
Please be aware that there is a separate District Court proceeding presently underway in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which also seeks to compel authentication of said REGISTRATION OF BIRTH: Keyes et al. v. Obama et al., case number 8:09-cv-82 (USDC, Los Angeles, California, USA).
For your convenience, we believe this is a valid link to a true and correct copy of the latest MOTION filed and served in the latter case:
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
As the Notice says, this subpoena was sent to the Kenyan Consulate in response to Mr. Lucas Smith’s affidavit regarding the alleged Kenya Birth Certificate. It is interesting to note that, should the subpoena be duly acted upon, there could be a response confirming or denying the legitimacy of the birth certificate, or there could be a response that no such document exists. And, depending on the latter response, that could then mean that either the birth certificate isn’t legitimate or that Mr. Obama was not, in fact, born in Kenya.
I will again reiterate that retreiving a copy of Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate is only one major aspect of the eligibility saga. The other aspect is his already-admitted Kenyan/British citizenship at birth.
Now, if only we could see a receipt of the transaction that produced the alleged Hawaiian COLB!
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphases mine]
Regardless of what any Supreme Court Justice, President, Representative or Senator does or says, we see a “beyond the shadow of a doubt” guarantee that no law in America shall keep the concerned citizen from being able to petition a case in which they have reason to believe that the same government — tasked with upholding all tenets of this document — is overlooking even the smallest part thereof. In the case of the President-Elect’s eligibility, the question of his credentials is always an open one; if by no other grouping of citizens, then certainly by we, the People.
I have heard much opposition on this blog and many other places across the blogosphere and in the media (where it’s actually a consideration) that the mere questioning of a politician’s eligibility for the office of the presidency is met with rank disdain, in almost taboo fashion. I have to wonder: what’s the fear in asking questions? Is this not a classically liberal proposition? Are we not all to hold those who govern us accountable to — at the very least — the basic, fundamental document that is our highest law of the land? To wit…
We await judicial action on the following dates:
Wednesday, January 21: The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition of Berg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page.
Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hear Brockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elect’s eligibility.
Friday, January 23:Dr. Orly Taitz‘ case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, goes to Conference, essentially asking the Justices for an emergency stay to keep California’s Electoral College Electors from voting. If the Justices make a decision on this day, the Orders would likely be released between 2 and 3pm ET. This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs include an Elector and a candidate for the vice presidency; theoretically, these two classes of citizens could overcome the standing hurdle.
The docket officially shows that Dr. Taitz’ suggestion for all Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from being involved with the President-Elect’s inauguration has been received.
Update: The following are two very astute comments from a couple of readers of my blog. I’ll post them here instead of in the commentary section:
URGENT From Lisa regarding Today’s SCOTUS ruling
written by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009
Here is a very brief explanation of what today’s ruling means to us…
What today’s ruling means is that WE’RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama – in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn’t resolved.
If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won’t be sworn in. We jsut don’t know what might happen next.
In the meantime, Bill Anderson’s motion for “permission” to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.
WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!
Phil is putting together a press release to be posted today on obamacrimes.com.
I’ll certainly be watching for that follow-up presser.
I believe the phrase “before judgment” means that the Supreme Court does not want to grant the writ before the matter is decided by the Third Circuit. Seehttp://www.anusha.com/no-cert.htm. After there is a Third Circuit opinion, and if it is unfavorable, Berg can seek another writ and Bill Anderson may file a brief as amicus curiae (his request was granted). This is the first of the Obama ineligibility cases to receive a comment from the Supreme Court, which could be seen as a positive development.
Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee, filed on August 21, 2008 and first reported here at America’s Right, questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution–which requires in part that the president be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States–and was previously dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from District Court in Philadelphia. While the Supreme Court’s denial of Berg’s petition for certiorari today was not accompanied by explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least six Justices agreed with Surrick’s determination that Berg lacked standing to sue. …
Berg’s case was dismissed at the district court level by Judge Surrick primarily for lack of standing, a procedural check required by the Case or Controversy Clause in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution as an effort to foster judicial efficacy and limit access to a court of law to those plaintiffs who can show a sufficient “stake” in a particular controversy. To prove standing and thus be eligible to bring suit, a plaintiff must show (1) a particularized–rather than generalized–injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that “regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.” …
Though the order list released by the Supreme Court today provides no reason for its denial of certiorari, such a denial inevitably is an affirmation of the district court judge’s assertion that Berg’s claim, as a mere voter, was far too generalized to satisfy the Case and Controversy Clause of the same Constitution he was attempting to uphold. Whether or not the Justices considered the factual elements of Berg’s allegations, without insight gleaned from a rare dissent to a denial of certiorari, is indeed another question left unanswered.
Either way, Berg says that this isn’t a fight which he’ll give up easily. This issue, he maintains, transcends politics and even transcends individual political candidates. Yes, Barack Obama is the focal point, but it’s a matter of upholding the Constitution, he says, of taking into account the intentions of America’s founders, men who at the time were still licking their wounds from bitter warfare and were understandably intensely concerned with the need for the highest office in the country to be held by someone fiercely and unequivocally loyal to the fledgling nation. It is for this reason–along, of course, with the “brazen” perpetration of what he repeatedly calls an “enormous hoax”–that Berg says he is so disappointed with the today’s news from the Supreme Court; it is for this reason, Berg says, that he wants “to continue standing firm for 320 million Americans.”
That continued fight, Berg says, involves an active case currently under seal, as well as a case filed last month on behalf of a retired Air Force colonel, both questioning Obama’s eligbility to serve as president of the United States and both centering on the documentation sought in the original action. According to Berg, the plaintiff in the latter case–Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a 20-year veteran with his own litigious history– filed suit out of concern that, should he be returned from his reserve status to active duty in this tumultuous global climate, his own Oath of Enlistment could conflict with his duty to follow lawful orders.
“If he’s reactivated, Col. Hollister comes under a duty to obey lawful orders,” Berg said. “The thing is, he’s confused because he won’t know if the orders that make their way down the chain of command have come from a Commander-in-Chief who is constitutionally eligible to serve in that position and give orders in the first place.”
The two other lawsuits, the case filed under seal citing Obama’s violations of the False Claims Act as well as the interpleader action filed on behalf of Hollister, are part of what Berg calls a “commitment to finding the truth about Obama for the sake of our Constitution and country,” an effort which started with the “hope that the Democratic Party would have done the right thing at its convention in August” and reached its peak today with news from our nation’s highest court of law.
“Today was a big setback,” Berg said, “but sooner or later, I’m confident that we can find the proper legal avenue to expose the truth about this unbelievable hoax, this circle of lies which has been thrust upon the American people. Barack Obama has lied to all of us, and he needs to be held responsible for doing so. More importantly, we all need to know that our Constitution still controls, that the president of the United States is constitutionally qualified to be there.”
Mr. Berg has another shot at Conference this Friday, where the Court will consider whether or not to (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of that vote.
More updates as time permits me to do so.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
[T]he application for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for certiorari has been “referred to the Court” by Justice Antonin Scalia, with a conference scheduled for Friday, January 16, 2009.
“I’m certainly encouraged,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m encouraged because it is still there.”
If the application for injunction truly is to be considered in conference by all nine Supreme Court Justices, it took a roundabout way to get there. It was filed and denied by Justice David Souter and refiled and once again denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy before making its way to Scalia’s lap.
Jeff goes on to discuss exactly what Berg is asking for in his suit (the injunction asked either (1) for a stay of the electoral college vote on December 15, 2008 or (2) for a stay of the counting of the votes on January 8, 2009) and some reasoning behind why the Justices are handling this case in the way in which they have.
In the meantime, the underlying petition for certiorari is scheduled for conference on Friday, January 9, 2009, and Berg seems to think that the selection of the date for conference could have something to do with the electoral votes being counted the day before.
“Until January 8, Obama is really nothing. He’s president-elect in name only, technically, until those votes are counted,” Berg said. “Seeing that we got to the Supreme Court before the other cases and are only now going to see conference weeks after they did, perhaps the timing is significant. I don’t know.”
My take follows…
On December 15, Berg refiled his case with Associate Justice Kennedy. The case was then distributed (presumably by Kennedy?) on December 17 for Conference of January 9, 2009. Yet, on the same day, Kennedy denied the case. So Berg resubmits to Associate Justice Scalia on December 18 who then presumably refers it to the full Court on December 23 for Conference of January 16.
Obviously there’s a whole lot of movin’ and shakin’ goin’ on here. While I don’t know enough of the logistics of how the Court operates to fully explain and subsequently understand these actions, Jeff (who has the legal education here) seems to think that January 9 is “for sure.” It’s the January 16 date that I’m not sure about.
I’ll go on record as disagreeing with Jeff, however, on the “round-about way to get there.” That is, he suggests that maybe the Justices are simply taking on these various cases under the auspices that denying the cases will effectively send the signal that they would go away, as it were. However, that’s irrational, in my opinion, for a few reasons:
Any and all Justices grant or deny hearings for writ of certiorari at their pleasure; if they really didn’t want to hear the case, they could simply deny them
Denying a writ of certiorari does not set precedent; rather, it simply means that a lower court’s ruling holds
The foregoing would suggest that the Justices take almost every case that comes to their doorstep, send it to Conference, only to turn around and deny in hopes that “someone is watching” (for lack of a better phrase) and will subsequently stop referrals
I could also be all wet on this and have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. However, I think all that one has to do is to put oneself into their shoes and think about the most rational, most logical thing that a Justice would do if they were getting numerous such cases. It’s not like the Justices have to consider any of them.
I’ll look forward to your comments, dear readers.
Update: MaryAnnH over at RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.org had this to say:
The Jan. 9 conference is to discuss yea or nay on the Writ of Certiorari filed by Phil Berg this past November. Jan. 16 conference is to discuss the Motion to Stay the Counting of the Electoral Votes by Congress. Interesting that both conferences are after the date that Congress will count the electoral votes. Perhaps it is because BO isn’t President-elect until the electoral votes are counted? Maybe it’s because they’re so duped that they don’t want to have to address the issues and can rule everything “moot” after Congress counts the electoral votes. Who knows. Interesting times we’re in, for sure.
Makes as much sense to me as anything else does at this point.
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]
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.
Please note that the Supreme Court Building will be closed on January 19 and January 20, 2009.
Concerning this particular Conference, I would like my readers to take notice of the docket for this aspect of the case (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar). While the original docket was a petition for a writ of Certiorari before judgment came down on Berg’s currently pending Third Circuit case in the lower court, that petition was denied but the amicus curiae was granted.
I was reading the first couple of pages and one thing written in the amicus brief should show you that the issues are REAL and people should not get discouraged. On page 2 and 3 are the telling paragraphs
1. This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and
2. The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and,
3. With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Okay, looking at these 3 provisions, the Supreme Court granted the brief and denied the stay because there is a bigger problem. This issue (e.g. granting writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama) will not only affect Obama, but it will likely impact Biden (Vice President Elect) as well since he was involved and current Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and any other person who is the successor in line to be President because they have knowledge of the fraud and complied with it (e.g. current democratic leadership). The people supporting Obama know the U.S. has a problem and that is why coup de’tat are so effective, but what is critical is that THE MILITARY KNOWS AND ARE ON GUARD NOT TO FOLLOW ANY ORDERS FROM AN INELIGIBLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
That is why the Supreme Court is being extra cautious here in which they should because there is a possibility of another American civil war. The investigations on all levels are going to impact a whole bunch of people who will need to be removed from serving in a federal capacity. This will likely be an Al Capone feat in bringing this down once all of this goes through.
The next thing to notice is that today’s Conference consideration was over whether or not to grant an injunction against the Electoral College — either the voting, per se, or the congressional certification thereof, pending the disposition of the first docket’s petition for Certiorari (I take that to mean that if the Justices would have granted Cert in the first part, the second part — today’s disposition — might have become moot, for the fact that the first part would have been heard). That is, there is no petition for Certiorari in this second Conference; there is merely the consideration by the Justices of whether or not to order this injunction.
Furthermore, we also see in this second docket that the application for an injunction was denied twice by two of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and then subsequently distributed for Conference on the third try. In my non-attorney opinion, I believe this helps to dispel the insinuation of past Court case behavior that the second Justice to whom a given case was ever applied was merely tossing that case into Conference for the intentional purpose of dismissing the case. I therefore believe it can be established that the Court is treating each and every case as its own situation, as well this body should.
What conclusion can we make of these observable behaviors on the part of the Justices? Another anonymous commentary comes from TheObamaFile.com (embedded within the comment is another worthwhile link on this theory):
My eighty-nine year old father practiced law for over 50 years. He was top in his class and clerked for the federal court. When the Gore case went to the SCOTUS he wrote the chapter, paragraph etc. that the court would decide the case on a piece of paper. He also wrote the vote tally and which justices would vote which way…..He gave the paper to a young judge in town and told him to open it when the decision was published……..He was 100% correct. He thinks any one who thinks that the SCOTUS is going to ignore or dismiss this case is delusional. He is much more qualified to judge the case then you are.
The Supreme Court had to wait until now for Berg to have standing. There is no precedence for this case. It is a historical decision and they will do everything they can to get it right. The constitution does not establish who vets the candidate. Part of their decision will determine who, or what will be held responsible in the future, if not now. It could destroy the Democratic Party if they are proved to be part of an intentional fraud. If Obama does not provide the documentation they request, he will be held in contempt, and they WILL obtain it.
Here’s another view of this chess game. It explains how the SCOTUS has Obama in Check Mate.
Both Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases said the burden lays with the Secretary of State (SoS) not doing their job. There is no law that states that it is their job. So, the SoS would win the case. In Conference, they probably talked about who was responsible to vet the candidate. If it wasn’t the SoS of each state, they did not want to waste valuable court time and not hold Obama accountable. The burden to each SoS to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time and expense. You will notice that neither cases were completely released but pending. They can be revisited and opinions may be written on them when a final release is given. Berg’s case, on the other hand, places the burden on the candidate, the party, and the FEC. Berg, however, did not have standing until Congress certified the electoral votes to present his case. He now has standing, as do Keyes and the other California cases.
Writer unknown . . .
Are the above two theories what actually are going to happen? I don’t think anyone knows. What I do know is that the fundamental premises of the amicus curiae have been accepted, and I maintain — again, as a non-attorney who is merely observing what’s going on with a particular bias towards wanting to know more about our President-Elect — that this decision on the part of the Justices — regardless of how many actually agreed thereto — could very well portend to positive things happening with Berg and/or other cases either at the Supreme Court level, those soon to be arriving, or even other lower court cases to be filed or currently pending.
This is my view of events to date. As always, feel free to opine in the commentary section with agreements or disagreements. Either way we look at things, we will know exactly what’s going on by Wednesday (hopefully) of next week.
I will be posting about next week’s pending legal events soon; in the meantime, a current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
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.
According to today’s Supreme Court Orders, the second Conference disposition of Berg v. Obama for injunctive relief has been denied:
BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.
The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and
referred to the Court is denied.
Tomorrow and Friday will bring about events on two additional lawsuits (as I originally covered for this week), Brockhausen v. Andrade and Lightfoot v. Bowen. It should again be noted that Lightfoot will be the first eligibility-based lawsuit reaching the Supreme Court that includes among the Plaintiffs an Electoral College Elector as well as a candidate for the vice presidency. We shall see if this variable is any kind of determining factor that persuades the Justices in any way.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Update: Ballot-Access.org also covered this case, though I disagree with their analysis: “Phil Berg has been the nation’s most energetic proponent of the idea that the Courts should examine President Obama’s qualifications.” Rather, I think a commenter there is helping to point the publisher in the right direction:
– next case up (Lightfoot) is this Friday. Standing issue should not be available to provide political cover for SCOTUS.
Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, will have a second Conference this Friday, January 16, concerning his request to either (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of same (original docket; new docket; all in “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar).
In my opinion, if Mr. Berg is smart, he will appropriately deal with his Third Circuit case (his brief for the case is due by January 20) prior to this Friday. Of course, even that won’t guarantee that the Supremes will react any differently to this question than his original petition for Certiorari, as the lower court is in no way obligated to “finish up business” prior to this Friday.
We also don’t completely know all of the cards in Philip Berg’s hand. Clearly, he has a sealed Berg v. Obama case currently under consideration in the Judiciary, and he’s already promised to file a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, should the President-Elect be inaugurated without any orders being handed down.
Even before this week is over, we also already know that next week could entail action from the courts at the State and federal levels as well; I’ll be writing a posting on that later.
For the Barack Hussein Obama presidential eligibility saga, this week presents a number of important milestones for both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government as well as the great State of Washington:
Thursday, January 8, 2009: Congress meets in joint session to count the Electoral College votes; from the National Archives: “Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.”
Thursday, January 8, 2009: James Broe, Plaintiff pro se and one of 13 total Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed(attorney Stephen Pidgeon representing), is scheduled to have his case heard via oral argument at the Washington State Supreme Court.
Friday, January 9, 2009: Philip J. Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, has his case going to Supreme Court Conference, where they will privately discuss whether or not to grant a writ of Certiorari (“Rule of Four“: 4 of 9 Justices required to grant). Remember the following concerning these writs, per Wikipedia: “the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial ‘imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.’ Missouri v. Jenkins,515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.”
Furthermore, regarding the Supreme Court’s private Conference, it is a private meeting (per the link on the Conference). That means nobody knows what the discussions entail except for the Justices and the Supreme Court is not obligated in any way to issue any kind of explanation for why they choose to deny or grant writs on cases.
Other notable links include the following:
SCOTUSBlog.com: Supreme Court of the United States Blog, sponsored by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
2008 Term Court Orders: Official page of the Supreme Court where Orders to grant or deny writs, etc. are posted