Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Docket entries, Berg v. Obama Third Circuit Court of Appeals (SEND TO MERITS PANEL)
ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov ^ | 2/3/2009 | rxsid

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)


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; ineligible
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-484 next last

1 posted on 02/03/2009 1:14:11 AM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rxsid

To us non-lawyer types, this is progress, right?


2 posted on 02/03/2009 1:18:13 AM PST by OldTCS (Confirmed, we now live in interesting times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldTCS
To us non-lawyer types, this is progress, right?

I translated it as "lawyers get paid again..."

3 posted on 02/03/2009 1:19:53 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

yep.


4 posted on 02/03/2009 1:22:11 AM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; BulletBobCo; seekthetruth; Kevmo; gunnyg; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; ...

~~PING!


5 posted on 02/03/2009 1:34:44 AM PST by STARWISE ( They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldTCS
"To us non-lawyer types, this is progress, right?"

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?

6 posted on 02/03/2009 1:34:46 AM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

English is strange that way. Pretty much everything translates to that.


7 posted on 02/03/2009 1:36:37 AM PST by OldTCS (Confirmed, we now live in interesting times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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


8 posted on 02/03/2009 2:54:37 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (Change is coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I don’t understand a word of it.


9 posted on 02/03/2009 3:33:17 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Why post this if you’re unwilling to post a corresponding explanation in plain English?


10 posted on 02/03/2009 3:53:10 AM PST by upchuck (Get ready for 2009: Pray; Raise/conserve cash; Pay your debts; Pray; Stockpile; Buy ammo; Pray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

‘birther’ bump


11 posted on 02/03/2009 4:27:04 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; STARWISE; LucyT; BP2; FreeManN

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.


12 posted on 02/03/2009 4:59:10 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; All

Certainly good news! It is about time a Court started to look at the merits in these cases.


13 posted on 02/03/2009 5:32:05 AM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OldTCS

“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.


14 posted on 02/03/2009 5:33:49 AM PST by Peter Horry (We shouldn't accept things just because somebody says so .... Dixie Lee Ray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


15 posted on 02/03/2009 5:37:12 AM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
DO you think they will enact the Amacae before it is scheduled to be heard......thereby determining merit?
16 posted on 02/03/2009 5:41:20 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; All

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.


17 posted on 02/03/2009 6:16:04 AM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Good News.
Thanks,
mc


18 posted on 02/03/2009 6:51:15 AM PST by mcshot ("prepare to ditch" Sully 01/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; FreeManN; LucyT; STARWISE

Yes, this a good thing. The case is being prepped for oral argument.

Start here:

And read more here (start on pg 10) : Federal Appellate Court Law Clerk Handbook


19 posted on 02/03/2009 7:02:20 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; All

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.


20 posted on 02/03/2009 7:03:57 AM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-484 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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