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

Skip to comments.

Berg v. Obama
Supreme Court ^ | 01-12-09 | srweaver

Posted on 01/12/2009 8:30:18 AM PST by srweaver

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourtus.gov ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911truther; berg; birthcertificate; birthers; boguspotus; building7; certifigate; choomgang; conspiracytheories; constitution; coup; dancingbolivians; donquixote; getalife; goberggo; ineligible; itsover; itsoverbirthers; kenyanpotus; kenyanusurper; luapnor; makeitstop; naturalborncitizen; nonmilitarycoup; obama; obamalies; scam; scotus; shamwow; tinfoil; usurper; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last
Any legal types with opinions/speculations of what this might mean?
1 posted on 01/12/2009 8:30:18 AM PST by srweaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: srweaver
Not a legal type, but here are some helpful definitions from Wikipedia.

Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.

A brief (Latin "brevis", short) or factum (Latin for "act" or "deed") is a written legal document used in various legal adversary systems that is presented to a court arguing why the party to the case should prevail. In England and Wales, the phrase refers to the papers given to a barrister when they are instructed.

2 posted on 01/12/2009 8:33:09 AM PST by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

Will Judge Roberts really swear in a complete fraud as President? WWW.JB-Williams.com


3 posted on 01/12/2009 8:34:44 AM PST by Uncle George
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle George

If they find he hasn’t proved citizenship, they will leave it to Congress to decide how to handle it.

What do you think?


4 posted on 01/12/2009 8:40:14 AM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

So, to the untrained among us, is this a good thing?


5 posted on 01/12/2009 8:42:49 AM PST by NCC-1701 (DRILL NOW. DRILL OFTEN. DRILL 24/7/365. PAY LESS. SUCK THE GROUND DRY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

So, OK, who’s Bill Anderson, and who’s paying his amicus filing costs?


6 posted on 01/12/2009 8:44:06 AM PST by Clioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle George

He has little choice but too swear him in.


7 posted on 01/12/2009 8:45:48 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Great patriotic stuff at www.patriotstore.us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

http://www.americasright.com/


8 posted on 01/12/2009 8:48:28 AM PST by luv2ndamend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: NCC-1701

Doesn’t look like it, no.


10 posted on 01/12/2009 8:50:52 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
Someone please translate this in layman's terms before I have a stroke.

Leni

11 posted on 01/12/2009 8:55:32 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

It means that Berg cannot skip over the federal court in his district.


12 posted on 01/12/2009 8:58:37 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

See my post #12.


13 posted on 01/12/2009 8:59:20 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle George
Just because he's Chief of SCOTUS doesn't mean he automatically swears in the new president.

Obama can channel the ghost of Abraham Lincoln to swear him in if he so chooses.

Seriously, it may have to be some officer of a court, but Obama probably will select Justice Roberts just for the prestige and to tweak Roberts' conservative nose a little as he stands before him .

Leni

14 posted on 01/12/2009 9:00:49 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Don’t take my word for anything but I am guessing the court has to wait for something to happen, like an underage drinker that has a beer outside a bar vs him being IN the bar and being an underage drinker.

Or as my crystal ball is trying to also decipher, that technically by all laws to date and thats important that they must wait for an additional event of evidence to occur, like the swearing in ceremony. That is just my impression.

I think the courts are playing safe and waiting for tantamount irrefutable evidence that will undeniably prove a verdict and not be subject to years of litigation.


15 posted on 01/12/2009 9:02:28 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Thanks. What are Berg's options now.

Leni

16 posted on 01/12/2009 9:02:34 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
Thanks. What are Berg's options now.

Maybe... get a real job?

17 posted on 01/12/2009 9:07:25 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

I hope Obama has a run-in with Lincoln’s ghost that has been known to haunt the WH. Maybe momma m-i-l will see ol Abe and refuse to live there.


18 posted on 01/12/2009 9:09:35 AM PST by Sig Sauer P220 (The Big 3 Auto Makers - Where Attention to Kwality is Jobe Won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
Actually, if you go by the text, it doesn't have to be anyone. Article II, Sec 1 only requires that the President take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office." It doesn't say anything about anyone administering the oath. You MIGHT be able to read some sort of common law understanding into the text, but I doubt it.

He could just stand on the stage by himself and recite the oath if he wants. Kind of like Napoleon crowning himself Emperor.
19 posted on 01/12/2009 9:10:44 AM PST by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

It means, denied.


20 posted on 01/12/2009 9:12:15 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scutter; Uncle George; Clioman; luv2ndamend; MinuteGal; Blood of Tyrants

To post 2: Thanks!

To Post 3: The general website left me totally lost, a specific article might have helped.

To post 6: The brief itself claims no one but the amicus (friend of the court) is paying the costs.

To post 8: Thanks for the info.

To post 11: “The wheels of justice grind slowly”...but they do grind.

To post 12: That makes sense.


21 posted on 01/12/2009 9:13:29 AM PST by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Thanks. What are Berg’s options now.


Allow the appellate process to play out through its normal procedure.. Or maybe find another topic to drum beat a while......


22 posted on 01/12/2009 9:14:03 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

Any legal types with opinions/speculations of what this might mean?


You may try the following:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2163123/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163147/posts


23 posted on 01/12/2009 9:16:43 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

From the wording that the writ was denied “before judgment”, it means that Berg must defend his case in federal district court.

The judge has the authority to dismiss or hear the case. If the judge hears the case, I can think of no reason that the judge would not issue a court order to the state of Hawaii and get the original or a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.

Of course, this may be cleared up MUCH quicker if a member of the military or reserves refuses an order that ultimately came from Obama on the grounds that Obama has no authority to make such an order.


24 posted on 01/12/2009 9:18:24 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: deport
Thanks....I think.

LOL

Leni

25 posted on 01/12/2009 9:18:41 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

Ongoing discussion about this case here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2163123/posts?page=42


26 posted on 01/12/2009 9:20:28 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle George
Will Judge Roberts really swear in a complete fraud as President? WWW.JB-Williams.com

it is not for the SCOTUS to do anything about at the time of the swearing in. It needed to come up before the SC before the election, during the period before the swearing in and it seems now, after the swearing in. If all the I’s are dotted and tees are crossed and it turns out that Obama is not a Natural Born citizen then the SC is duty bound to make such a declaration.

27 posted on 01/12/2009 9:20:28 AM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
"What are Berg's options now."

Back to trying prove terrorists weren't responsible for 9-11 maybe.

28 posted on 01/12/2009 9:21:00 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Oh, also, the federal court can also rule that the Pennsylvania SC erred in their ruling, i.e. that Berg did not have “standing”, and order them to hear the case.


29 posted on 01/12/2009 9:22:17 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"Of course, this may be cleared up MUCH quicker if a member of the military or reserves refuses an order that ultimately came from Obama on the grounds that Obama has no authority to make such an order.

Yeah....maybe the pilot of his new helicopter refuses to start up....leaving 0bambi sitting in a cold windswept chopper after the inauguration.

30 posted on 01/12/2009 9:23:50 AM PST by spokeshave (For every sunspot found, a Global Warming angel gets their wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Thanks. What are Berg's options now. Maybe... get a real job?

I agree, the nut-case market is full up

31 posted on 01/12/2009 9:24:27 AM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Maybe... get a real job?”

Berg has found a real a job. Taking donations from the poor souls that will not see.

Berg can ride this scam for another six months


32 posted on 01/12/2009 9:31:30 AM PST by Nokia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

We can dream.... but more likely it will be some reservist who refuses to report for activation and is then subjected to a courts martial.


33 posted on 01/12/2009 9:32:58 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Obama is living proof that stupid people should not be allowed to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

No big deal. A guy wanted to join Berg’s suit, and the court let him.


34 posted on 01/12/2009 9:35:15 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: srweaver

It means the Supreme Court is not going to hear this prior to the inaguration, which is yet another sign that this issue is not on their radar screen. Please, drop it. This news may be “breaking” but it is not worthy of being in the “Breaking News” sidebar, IMO.


36 posted on 01/12/2009 9:59:20 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

“Any legal types with opinions/speculations of what this might mean?”

It seems to me they postponed accepting or rejecting Berg’s application for certiorari until the “friend of the court” petition by Bill Anderson is heard. In other words, Berg’s case is definitely alive and being seriously considered.


37 posted on 01/12/2009 10:07:25 AM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
I think the courts are playing safe and waiting for tantamount irrefutable evidence that will undeniably prove a verdict and not be subject to years of litigation.

The courts are not waiting for anything. They have zero interest in this. Any of these cases will be lucky to even get a comment when they are dismissed.

(feel free to beat the messenger)
38 posted on 01/12/2009 10:07:35 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: devere

Delusional.


39 posted on 01/12/2009 10:09:00 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: devere
It seems to me they postponed accepting or rejecting Berg’s application for certiorari until the “friend of the court” petition by Bill Anderson is heard. In other words, Berg’s case is definitely alive and being seriously considered.

I agree.

40 posted on 01/12/2009 10:10:26 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cheddar Cat

I just wish there was some way to stop Obama before he destorys the country. Maybe George Bush will declare Marshall law sometime later this week. In fact I am sending him an email right now and recommending it.. I mean obviously if the economy is in such dire straights worser then even the Great Depression we really shouldn’t be changing Presidents at this time don’t you agree?

There must be a way to stop Obama. On NOV 4th America was on a drunken stupor fueled by the BDS liquor and the Obama messiah change drugs that the MSM and the wackoo left was feeding the electorate.

8 days before the inauguration and I am already pining for the good ol’ days under George W. Bush.


41 posted on 01/12/2009 10:13:56 AM PST by tomnbeverly ("In the hour of darkness and peril and need, the people will waken to listen and hear.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
Delusional

The Supreme Court accepted the Amicus Curiae brief (read it here) and inserted the the words "before judgement" in their order.

That's not delusional.

42 posted on 01/12/2009 10:15:13 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: tomnbeverly

It is martial law, not “Marshall” law you are thinking of.


44 posted on 01/12/2009 10:18:55 AM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (QMC(SW) USN........ CG21 DD988 FFG34 PC6 ARS53)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
So, to the untrained among us, is this a good thing?

Not so much, no.

45 posted on 01/12/2009 10:20:25 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

Why would the court allow somebody to join a declined/dead suit?


46 posted on 01/12/2009 10:20:56 AM PST by persistence48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"Of course, this may be cleared up MUCH quicker if a member of the military or reserves refuses an order that ultimately came from Obama on the grounds that Obama has no authority to make such an order.

Ask Michael New how well that works.

47 posted on 01/12/2009 10:22:38 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in.html

this is a good explaination of it all.


48 posted on 01/12/2009 10:23:01 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: persistence48

Who said it was dead? It is sick, but not yet dead.


49 posted on 01/12/2009 10:28:22 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

An Obama + Our Nation = Abomination!


50 posted on 01/12/2009 10:31:40 AM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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