Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Berg Case: Can anyone decode the latest?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html ^

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??

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html

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.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bergcase; donquixote; hireyourowndamnatty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 01/12/2009 8:00:36 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dascallie; David; GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

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. (?)


2 posted on 01/12/2009 8:05:50 AM PST by null and void (Hey 0bama, now that you've caught the car, what are you going to do with it, hmmm?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...

Writ denied but not the rest?

Ping.

[bbl]


3 posted on 01/12/2009 8:06:53 AM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

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.


4 posted on 01/12/2009 8:09:18 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

CERTIORARI DENIED

08-570
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.


5 posted on 01/12/2009 8:10:43 AM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
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.

This seems like a good thing...not a dead issue to SCOTUS

6 posted on 01/12/2009 8:11:36 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

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.


7 posted on 01/12/2009 8:12:41 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
WRIT OF CENTIORARI

Are you sure it wasn't a writ of CERTIORARI?

8 posted on 01/12/2009 8:12:42 AM PST by capt. norm (Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

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.

9 posted on 01/12/2009 8:14:06 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
Can anyone decode the latest?

"BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE."

10 posted on 01/12/2009 8:14:52 AM PST by dfwgator (1996 2006 2008 - Good Things Come in Threes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
WRIT OF CENTIORARI

Are you sure it wasn't a writ of CERTIORARI?

No - it was actually written by a centaur.

11 posted on 01/12/2009 8:15:24 AM PST by Puddleglum (this space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

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.


12 posted on 01/12/2009 8:17:41 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

A crummy commercial? Son of a b%tch!


13 posted on 01/12/2009 8:19:04 AM PST by TankerKC (Lately I miss the Y2K kooks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

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.


14 posted on 01/12/2009 8:19:29 AM PST by karibdes (It's not a perfect world. Screws fall out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: dascallie

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).


16 posted on 01/12/2009 8:22:25 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: karibdes

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.


17 posted on 01/12/2009 8:27:16 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
01010111010100100100100101010100
0110111101100110
01000011010001010101001001010100010010010100111101010010010000010101001001001001

01000100011100100110100101101110011010110000110100001010
010110010110111101110101011100100000110100001010
0100111101010110010000010100110001010100010010010100111001000101

Because you need to know!

18 posted on 01/12/2009 8:33:08 AM PST by SERE_DOC (Today's politicians, living proof why we have and need a second amendment to the constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"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?"

The Supreme Court is not an investigative agency.

19 posted on 01/12/2009 8:33:14 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Helen
"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."

They aren't punting. There are no Constitutional consquences. There never was a case here.

20 posted on 01/12/2009 8:34:58 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

“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.


21 posted on 01/12/2009 8:35:07 AM PST by blueyon (Every one will have their 15 mins under the bus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: karibdes
Thought I’d register and answer.

Awww...how nice. </sarcasm>

22 posted on 01/12/2009 8:37:09 AM PST by TankerKC (Lately I miss the Y2K kooks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
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.

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!!!!

23 posted on 01/12/2009 8:41:14 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Helen
"It seems to me it’s the straw that will break the Constitution’s back."

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.

I do wish as many people were talking about Obama's socialism, but I guess we live in a gimme-gimme era of abject barking stupidity.
24 posted on 01/12/2009 8:44:16 AM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([In the primaries, vote "FOR". In the general, vote "AGAINST". ...See? Easy.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

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.


25 posted on 01/12/2009 8:53:29 AM PST by appleseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

http://www.americasright.com/


26 posted on 01/12/2009 8:58:51 AM PST by luv2ndamend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
mlo said: "The Supreme Court is not an investigative agency. "

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.

27 posted on 01/12/2009 9:06:01 AM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Can anyone decode the latest?

"BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE."


Damn, that means Berg will have to double dog dare Hussein.
28 posted on 01/12/2009 9:12:43 AM PST by Sig Sauer P220 (The Big 3 Auto Makers - Where Attention to Kwality is Jobe Won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
"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."

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.

29 posted on 01/12/2009 9:17:40 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


30 posted on 01/12/2009 9:18:53 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mlo

ok - if you say so, it must be fact. /s


31 posted on 01/12/2009 9:40:02 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
08-570
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 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!

32 posted on 01/12/2009 9:42:58 AM PST by voveo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sig Sauer P220

Damn, that means Berg will have to double dog dare Hussein.


Hah. That will probably be more effective than any court case.


33 posted on 01/12/2009 9:58:38 AM PST by kenth (Uhhhh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Helen

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...


34 posted on 01/12/2009 9:59:41 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks; mlo

That reply was pure sarcasm to mlo, whom I consider a full-blown obot.


35 posted on 01/12/2009 10:03:57 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Helen
LOL - yep, noticed that myself. :)

But, the post I was replying to was yours to Karibdes; the "lurking lawyer" who just happened to sign up to explain this to us, but conveniently just passed on false information...

I just didn't want you to take his post at face value. This case is far from over in regards to this announcement. I've read a bunch of posts, and the prevailing opinion by those who don't seem to have a pro-Obama agenda, is that SCOTUS just told Berg not to bypass the lower courts.
36 posted on 01/12/2009 10:16:08 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Helen
"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.

37 posted on 01/12/2009 10:37:59 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Helen
"ok - if you say so, it must be fact. /s"

Isn't that exactly the method you are using?

38 posted on 01/12/2009 10:41:02 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks; karibdes

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.


39 posted on 01/12/2009 10:41:03 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: null and void
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.

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.

40 posted on 01/12/2009 10:46:33 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Helen

Thanks, I’ll go and check out the link you posted. :)


41 posted on 01/12/2009 10:55:04 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: karibdes

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.


42 posted on 01/12/2009 12:19:50 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


43 posted on 01/12/2009 12:22:51 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast

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.


44 posted on 01/12/2009 12:26:56 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dascallie; MHGinTN
ping to MHGinTN. He has a good explanation of what this means.
45 posted on 01/12/2009 12:30:26 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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?


46 posted on 01/12/2009 12:31:26 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Helen

Good post. I’ll need to visit that site later on.


47 posted on 01/12/2009 12:32:45 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
BC Trolls...

Photobucket

48 posted on 01/12/2009 12:34:08 PM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
From the document.....

"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.

49 posted on 01/12/2009 1:25:14 PM PST by wtc911 ("How you gonna get back down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wtc911
"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,

Yes, but the Constitution itself declares that the President must be a natural born citizen. So whatever the Constitution may or may not say about electors and names on ballots is subordinate to the fact that the President must be a natural born citizen. At some point, therefore, his (or her) citizenship must be verified.
50 posted on 01/12/2009 1:28:15 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson