Yes, this a good thing. The case is being prepped for oral argument.
Start here:
Posted on 02/03/2009 1:14:11 AM PST by rxsid
Current status of Berg's case pending in the 3rd dist. court of appeals (same case the SCOTUS denied the two emergency stay requests)
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)
To us non-lawyer types, this is progress, right?
I translated it as "lawyers get paid again..."
yep.
~~PING!
Being a non-lawyer myself...
It appears to me that motions in the case (from both sides, with the latest being Berg's "Motion for summary action") have now been sent to the merits panel.
This would appear to be a step further than a court response of DENIED.
Perhaps the 'layer types' in the crowd could confirm and/or elaborate?
English is strange that way. Pretty much everything translates to that.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Internal Operating Procedure 3.3
Entering Court.
The panel assembles in the robing room approximately five (5) minutes prior to the opening of court. The judges enter the courtroom from the robing room in the reverse order of precedence. The next ranking judge is stationed to the right
of the presiding judge facing the courtroom from the bench. All remain standing until the presiding judge sits.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/Rules/IOP-Final.pdf
I don’t understand a word of it.
Why post this if you’re unwilling to post a corresponding explanation in plain English?
‘birther’ bump
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.
Certainly good news! It is about time a Court started to look at the merits in these cases.
“To us non-lawyer types, this is progress, right”
Not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure it means the case is winding through the bowels of the beast and we have to wait to see what comes out.
For those still discouraged, there is yet another case filed with SCOTUS and still more on the way. This issue is NOT going away until a Court decides on the issue, namely is BO eligible to be POTUS.
As you know I have not communicated with Berg so I have no inside info on what might be transpiring. It appears that he is jumping through a lot of legal hoops unnecessarily.
As you know, I think it would behoove Berg and all other attorneys to communicate and develop a joint strategy. I know that Orly has contacted Berg but he is not cooperating with her.
In the end, this matter will be heard by SCOTUS. At this point, it is just a question of which team of lawyers get there first. I think Orly’s team will be the first to be heard by SCOTUS on the merits.
Good News.
Thanks,
mc
As you know there are on-going investigations into BO’s campaign.
Thus, it is likely that the Justice Department does not want to have the civil case heard until all the criminal information is compiled.
But there is always the chance that a lawyer will figure out how to get a case before SCOTUS that is limited enough in scope so as not to interfere with said criminal investigations but broad enough for SCOTUS to rule on the issue of eligibility.
Thank you. It’s a bright sunshiney day again.
Dad is sleeping in, so I’ll ask you two. Doesn’t discovery happen before oral arguments? When will the AZ amicae be triggered?
Woo Hoo! Over here!
...and yea! for me for making to the thread before the trolls and BOHICA Boys Club.
Thanks for the update! Many thnaks to Hoosiermama, BP2, FreeMan and others who have been working so hard plus keeping us up to date. :-) Woo hoo.
Also thanks to Berg, Orly, Pidegeon, Leo, Cort, Plains Radio, FR and many others.
Orly is incredible and tireless. She should be Gov of CA. She could tell Arnuld in an Russo-Arunld accent “get out of here.” ;-) Sorry I am a bit giddy.
Call me a “Certified Birther.”
Finally! Some good news this morning.
What's the question - corn or no corn?
LOL! It is funny how the usual suspects come out of the woodwork at the same time. My guess is they are waiting to get their talking points fax or emails.
Anyone want to bet? I say one will pop up in 20 minutes or less.
As HooMa says they will be very quiet. ;-)
It does sound like good news, and I also think its time to propose the idea of having Orly nominated to a higher level in our next administration, I do not know the specific chain of events required but it appears to me anyway she would make a very good representative in our government, an adviser say to the next Attorney General?
Thanks to Hoosiermama for being our official transcriber.
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf
Tied to THIS SCOTUS case: No. 08-570
|
|
||||
| Title: |
|
|||
| Docketed: | October 31, 2008 | |||
| Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
| Case Nos.: | (08-4340) |
|
|
Rule 11 |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Oct 30 2008 | Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) |
| Oct 31 2008 | Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. |
| Nov 3 2008 | Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. |
| Nov 3 2008 | Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. |
| Nov 18 2008 | Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed. |
| Dec 1 2008 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson. |
| Dec 8 2008 | Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. |
| Dec 9 2008 | Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter. |
| Dec 15 2008 | Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| Dec 17 2008 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009. |
| Dec 17 2008 | Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy. |
| Dec 18 2008 | Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. |
| Dec 23 2008 | Application (08A505) referred to the Court. |
| Dec 23 2008 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. |
| Jan 12 2009 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson GRANTED. |
| Jan 12 2009 | Petition DENIED. |
| Jan 21 2009 | Application (08A505) denied by the Court
The Petition was denied at the SCOTUS for procedural reasons. BUT, there are things happening with this, and all of Berg's cases which are very encouraging!
and anyone else notice how BIDEN is with Obama for every announcement, signing, or swearing in? Hmmmm..... |
It IS strange that they haven’t shown up yet. I thought that maybe they needed to decipher the legalese but that wouldn’t stop them from the usual, “this is a waste of time, we have to move on” crap. Maybe they really are organized and they are being prepped on how to respond to changing circumstances.
All I know is that it’s very pleasant when we constitutionalists have a thread to ourselves!
It is unusual.....hmmmmmmm
Sis has also pointed out that this didn’t happen until Hillary was sworn in.....hhhhmmmm.
Ditto that!
to all those you mentioned:
booya! baby!
(saving CAPS for later ;)
Almost make a person want to ping them...........
..............
...........naw!
Obama has given up!
Obama and the DNC filed an ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in the lower Court and a Motion to Dismiss. The lower Court GRANTED the Motion to Dismiss and Berg began his appeal process. An appeal to SCOTUS was a part of the appeal process.
SCOTUS denied Berg and GRANTED leave for the Amicus Curiae Brief which opined this case is an exceptional and unusal case; therefore, standing and jurisdiction issues must be put aside and the case must be heard.
What is so amazing is that Obama’s Presidency hangs in the balance of this appeal and he has not bothered to respond to it other than to say Berg does not have standing.
VP Biden did it and messed it up. Hillary corrected him.
LOL! I lost my own bet. I bet one would show up in 20 minutes. I went to lunch, came back and still no OBots.
The Talking Points Dept. must having a real problem. LOL! Maybe they forgot to pay their taxes like everyone else around the faux Messiah.
I guess they realize the FactCheck.org responses to us and the footnotes to the court are not doing the trick anymore. ;-)
Daschle just pulled out!!!!!
Sis just called with the good news...Who was the woman who also resigned? She didn’t catch her name.
Killefer
What Orly really needs right now is the assistance of one paralegal who is accustomed to drafting ordinary discovery requests to SCOTUS in a case of original jurisdiction.
BillyBob et al know any paralegals like that?
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.