Skip to comments.Berg Case: Can anyone decode the latest?
Posted on 01/12/2009 8:00:35 AM PST by dascallie
Posted on January 12, 2009 10:49:19 AM EST by seekthetruth
PLEASE GO TO PAGE 19 FOR BERG CASE AND READ. THEN EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE! WRIT DENIED BUT NOT THE REST??
BERG CASE ORDER: THE MOTION OF BILL ANDERSON FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF A AMICUS CURIAE IS GRANTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CENTIORARI BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS DENIED.
It looks like, to my untrained eye, that they want to gather more information, and not actually do anything until they’ve decided the case. (?)
Writ denied but not the rest?
Definition of Amicus Curiae from the Tech Law Journal:
Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits.
Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court’s decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case.
Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to “lobby” the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.
“An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.” Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.
The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.
This seems like a good thing...not a dead issue to SCOTUS
It does seem unusual. What’s the point of an amicus curiae brief to a case that has been denied?
It’s really too bad they can’t just accept ONE of these cases, and then invite everyone else to join the party as amici curiae.
There are a number of issues. Where was Obama born? Were his parents every actually married? If not formally married, did they live together long enough to satisfy the criteria for common law marriage?
Was Obama adopted by Sotero? Was he a dual citizen. Did his parents relinquish his American citizenship, if he ever had it? Did Obama travel on foreign passports? Did Obama apply to college and/or law school as a foreign student?
All of these issues would appear relevant to the issue of whether he is constitutionally qualified to be president. Some of these lawsuits raise one issue, some another, but they should be brought together in one case and all considered, if only, worst case, to remove any doubts as to Obama’s qualifications.
Are you sure it wasn't a writ of CERTIORARI?
Plain language - a writ before we hear the Amicus Curiae is denied...the writ is not denied yet...just not before we hear the Amicus Curiae.
"BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE."
Are you sure it wasn't a writ of CERTIORARI?
No - it was actually written by a centaur.
Didn’t write it.
I just copied and pasted the question from another thread at FR, to see if anyone had an interpretation of this.
A crummy commercial? Son of a b%tch!
long time lurking atty here. Thought I’d register and answer.
What happened is that an Amicus Brief was already filed along with the motion to accept the filing. They did permit him to file it and then denied Cert. The reason they did that was to discourage the filer of the Amicus brief from filing another suit with the same arguments. In short, they just refused to hear the case and this particular one is over.
Hope that helped.
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101 (e).
It’s so difficult to believe the Supreme Court is punting on this one. It seems to me it’s the straw that will break the Constitution’s back.
Thank you - I’m glad you registered. I don’t particularly like your message, but it does make sense.
Because you need to know!
The Supreme Court is not an investigative agency.
They aren't punting. There are no Constitutional consquences. There never was a case here.
“It seems that SCOTUS has denied the Writ before hearing the merits of the Amicus Curiae...they want to hear how the case affects other people before FINAL decision.”
Or does it give the dems a chance to say what a negative thing on society it would be if the “LAW” was followed and the One was not allowed to be Pres.
Awww...how nice. </sarcasm>
Highly possible, but I am speaking way out of my league here. I am just reading and emotionally responding as a layman out of enthusiasm...bottom line, it seems that Berg is not a dead issue!!!!
This was posted on Berg’s blog by a commenter:
In this case, Mr. Berg filed concurrently with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (and his appeal is still active—unresolved—there (Docket #08-4340 in the 3CCoA) and the USSC. The USSC allows such “before judgment of the lower court” filings under USSC Rule 11. If you look at the USSC docket for Mr. Berg’s petition for writ of cert (the one that was denied today), you’ll see the notation of “Rule 11” near the top, which is USSC shorthand for “this case hasn’t been resolved yet through the normal lower court appeals.”
So, “denied before judgment” simply means that the case has not yet been resolved in the lower court (in this case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals), and the USSC is declining to hear the case at this time. Once the case is concluded in the 3CCoA (and that would be several months before it is even heard, as the initial briefing period has barely begun in the case), that final decision could still be appealed to the USSC (via another petition for writ of certiorari by whichever party—Mr. Berg or Obama, et. al.—is unsuccessful in the appeal).
With all the false info. being tossed around can some one verify this? I tried looking on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals docket page but a PACER account is needed. Anyone have a PACER account to look? The info. sounds legit - just want to verify.
I believe that I have read that there is a class of case for which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and the Court then accepts evidence, but it happens extremely rarely.
I agree that parts of the constitution are routinely ignored, and have been for a long time. But Obama's qualification isn't one of them, and the income tax and direct election of senators (neither of which I like) were enacted by constitutional ammendment, so they are constitutional.
No. But these are all issues that have been raised in a number of lawsuits, and all are related to the basic question before the court. Is Obama a Natural Born citizen? There are numerous reasons to doubt it.
ok - if you say so, it must be fact. /s
This is the exact statement from SCOTUS. It opens the door yet again, notice that it states “before judgment”, the others just say “denied”. It allows Bill Anderson to gather more information, ie: original birth certificate! SCOTUS will then make a JUDGMENT. It's just setting up a precedent for procedure.
Very interesting, indeed!
Damn, that means Berg will have to double dog dare Hussein.
It would only make sense if it were the truth. I would suggest reading some of the posts by people we DO know. This announcement by SCOTUS does NOT mean what this “newbie” pretends it does...
That reply was pure sarcasm to mlo, whom I consider a full-blown obot.
Which you are also completely wrong about.
If you can just ignore what anyone says by putting a label on them then nobody can ever prove you wrong. Hey, that's pretty neat!
It's also a logical fallacy.
Isn't that exactly the method you are using?
Thanks for the clarification.
I’ve followed this natural born citizen subject for months, and I’m no babe in the woods when it comes to understanding it. I’ve argued for it, hoped for it, prayed for it, and believed wholeheartedly the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution.
Karibdes is saying the same thing others KNOWN to be in the field of law are saying. I believe what he is saying is fact. For a second opinion, check out http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in.html
This is the America’s Right website, blogger Jeff Schrieber who is a law student. Be sure to read the replies to his blog. It is a very thoughtful and reasoned discussion that has been following Berg and his trip through the courts.
I haven’t given up on the Supreme Court. My heart hits the floor every time one of these cases is dismissed, and my reaction to karibdes is a reflection of that.
I’m also aware of the influx of newbies/obots/distractors and their agenda.
They let Anderson file his amicus brief in support of Berg's case. Then they denied Berg's petition. That's it in a nutshell. Berg is attempting to sidestep the appeals process. The Supreme Court said no.
Thanks, I’ll go and check out the link you posted. :)
long time lurking atty here.
***Of all the cases filed with the SCOTUS, how many have had 2 forwarded conferences? That strikes me as very rare. Is it completely unique?
Also, I know that 99.5% of cases don’t get writ of cert, but what percentage of cases get forwarded for conference? I’ve asked around and only gotten silence on that question.
There never was a case here.
***Thanks for weighing in. For the benefit of lurkers, those of us who’ve been following the CertifiGate issue have noticed a lot of CoLB trolls such as mlo. They never seem to answer the question of why the SCOTUS has forwarded this issue 5 times for conference rather than just deny it outright. Back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
Ship has sailed. Making the birth circumstances of the President a don’t-care is just the cherry on top of an constitution-shredding parfait whipped up from things as varied as the income tax, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, direct election of Senators, etc etc etc.
***Interesting point, but there has never been a case as stark as this before the SCOTUS with respect to eligibility. Other cases where SCOTUS shreds the constitution were Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, Kelo, Separation of Church & State (you won’t find that in the constitution), and like you say, etc. etc. I perceive that this case will be the threshold event that historians look back at and say, “from this point onward, America was no longer a constitutional republic but rather an empire”, just like when Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
It’s also a logical fallacy.
***It makes me all warm & fuzzy inside to see that you are committed to avoiding logical fallacies. If we examine your recent posts on this topic, how many logical fallacies will we find emanating from you?
Good post. I’ll need to visit that site later on.
"To begin with, the Constitution itself does not even envision the names of the ultimate candidates for President even being on the ballot, but instead only the names of the candidates for elector, who are left free to choose for whom they should vote. Thus, one would not even expect to find a provision in the Constitution requiring that someone being voted on for President by the electors would first have to affirmatively prove his eligibility to anybody."
IOW....there is no provision in the Constitution that requires that any President Elect prove his eligibility.
Maybe bambi's actions do 'speak for themselves' but he doesn't have to show anything to anybody.
And that is why nothing will come of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.