Berg Case: Can anyone decode the latest?

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

[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.

[blueyon]

“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.

[TankerKC]

Thought I’d register and answer.

Awww...how nice. </sarcasm>

[IrishPennant]

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!!!!

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"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.

[appleseed]

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.

[luv2ndamend]

http://www.americasright.com/

[William Tell]

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.

[Sig Sauer P220]

Can anyone decode the latest?

"BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE."

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

[mlo]

"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.

[Cicero]

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.

[Helen]

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

[voveo]

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!

[kenth]

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

---

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

[LibertyRocks]

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...

[Helen]

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

[LibertyRocks]

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.

[mlo]

"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.

[mlo]

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

Isn't that exactly the method you are using?

[Helen]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.