Berg Lawsuit Takes Strange Twist

PUMA For Life ^ | 12-26-08

[STARWISE]

In what appears to be a strange twist, Phil Berg’s injunction, which asked the SCOTUS to stay the Electoral College Vote on December 15 or stay the counting of the votes on January 8, has been scheduled for a SCOTUS conference on Friday, January 16. This is in addition to the SCOTUS conference scheduled for January 9, which will take up Berg’s petition for certiorari.

It is difficult to determine what is going on in the minds of the Justices. Berg thinks that his certiorari petition may have been scheduled for conference after the Electoral College votes are actually counted because it is not until after the votes are counted that Obama is officially the President-Elect.

There are several theories flying around concerning the January 16 injunction conference. Jeff Berg at America ’s Right thinks that allowing a moot proceeding to be heard could be a tactic to prevent other such proceedings to come before the court.

On the other hand, Tom Waite, writing at Berg’s website, believes that the SCOTUS has very cleverly scheduled the petition for certiorari after the counting of the Electoral College votes because Berg will have standing at that point. Waite feels that the scheduling of the second conference on January 16 is a very clever way of boxing Obama in.

He likens it to a game of chess. If Obama does not produce the requested documentation on the 9th, then the SCOTUS can retroactively cancel the results of theElectoral College.

To add further intrigue to the situation, Obama is vacationing in Hawaii , where his friend and advisor, Valerie Jarrett, will be meeting with the governor.

And Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, is said to be vacationing in Africa with no word on where. Would it be a surprise to find him in Kenya , where Obama’s family has been silenced and where there very possibly is another birth certificate?

This is reading like a soap opera folks. Pass the popcorn, please.

http://www.americasright.com/

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

[Calpernia]

This whole election seemed more of a test of the eligibility clause.

[RegulatorCountry]

Yes, this was coming no matter who won.

[Philo1962]

Lastly, I don't think he was even born in 1961, and his father may not even be Barack Obama senior from Kenya, which makes him even more of a punk to manipulate black people in such a crass way. He's a punk, an affirmative action fraud, and he needs to be exposed, even if he was born of two American citizen parents, whomever they may be.

I have long maintained that he was probably born in Hawaii, making him eligible for the presidency; but proving it with a long form birth certificate would reveal something he wants to keep secret -- something that would be a great embarassment, and could have cost him the election if it had been revealed before November 4.

The most obvious possibility is that Frank Marshall Davis is his real father. Davis was a communist, and he was such a close "friend of the family" that in his book, Obama called him "Uncle Frank."

[panthermom]

Only the Obamabots in the cities would riot, but it does not take much to get a rise out of them anyway.

[mkjessup]

Good points FRiend, although I had to chuckle just a bit at this:

"I fully expect to see motions made in the House to set aside the vote count until Obama produces the genuine proof of his eligibility -- beginning with the original BC and other documentation that BHO has kept secret."

I see absolutely no way that Shrieker Pelosi would go along with the idea of insisting that 0bama prove his Constitutional eligibility. She would slit her wrists first.

[Grampa Dave]

We have a new game called, “Whose your Daddy, Obama?”

It probably “was not” the drunkard Obama?

It probably wasn’t Frank the commie.

It may be the guy compared to Zer0 on these Youtube links.

The video of Obama is ahead of the audio, but it’s the audi that is all important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf1Vx8UyS_0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBgmpuubX1k

[conservativegranny]

“First, we don’t knwo what the vault copy in Hawai’i actually shows, so we may look at what Obama has done since the first lawsuits seeking to have the vault copy revealed ... he has spent p[erhaps more than a million dollars to prevent having to show documentation in a court of law which could conduct ‘authentication’, which his forgery cannot stand up to!”

How do we know he has spent this much? I have a liberal I’m debating this with who claims he has spent nothing and all of the suits have been dismissed.

[hoosiermama]

Is it possible that the states that are missing are the states that have court cases pending..somewhere?

Don’t want to act until the cases are resolved....Remember even Conn and NJ cases were not dismissed by the SCOTUS, they were left pending.

[hoosiermama]

Isn’t Pelosi one of the defendents in the Berg case because she certified BO ?

In Indiana to take part in an election fraud is a 10 year penalty, wonder what it is at the national level?

[DrC]

“When has the SC ever had a hearing and announced a ruling within 4 days?”

It did so twice in 2000, with the decisive decision being rendered within 16 hours of oral argument:

“By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the Florida presidential election,[8] and on that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount.[9] On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the recount, by a 5–4 vote.[10]

The oral argument in Bush v. Gore occurred on December 11.[11] Bush’s oral argument was delivered by Theodore B. Olson, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore’s oral argument was delivered by New York lawyer David Boies.

During the brief period when the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarifications[12] which the U.S. Supreme Court had requested on December 4 in the case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000). Because of the extraordinary nature and urgency of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush v. Gore on December 12, just 16 hours after hearing oral argument.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[hoosiermama]

Rosewell...Is that the name of a nudist colony in Northern Indiana?

[MHGinTN]

If nothing else, try a little math. He has three law firms--not lawyers, whole firms--and their travel expenses and detective expenses traveling around the world--Kenya, Indonesia, Hawai'i, all over the US--covering up every document which relates to his adult life, from the time of his applications to college, to college funding to passport requests. Every case the lie beral claims was dismissed had to have a lawyer representing Obama seeking to prevent the court order of documents which Obama has claimed prove he is eligible--the online claimed document being an unreliable exhibit for a host of forgery related reasons! This cover-up activity has been going on for two years at least, and the lawsuits began in earnest back last summer and are ongoing even today.

A million dollars spent to keep from presenting his forgery in court is probably a low estimate by now. And now there is a court case in which exhibit has been accepted and catelogued from a document expert which questions the authenticity of the document Obama has exhibited to claim he is eligible. Sooner or later, no matter how much money this affirmative action fraud has spent to keep from showing proof of eligibility, this man will be exposed.

You might also tell your lie beral debater that only injunctions have been denied by the SCOTUS, that none of the cases thus far sent to conference have been deep sixed and Berg's case is on schedule for two conference discussions at SCOTUS in January.

[MHGinTN]

That is a good and fine point ... when the EVs are challenged and the House and Senate require Obama to provide proof of eligibility, THEN the issue of ‘natural born citizen’ and Obama’s British citizenship at birth will be a SCOTUS issue to interpret.

[LeoOshkosh]

ping

[mkjessup]

Rosewell...Is that the name of a nudist colony in Northern Indiana?

Yeah, it's for octogenarian fans of Orson Welles, the password to get in is 'Rosebud'. ;)

[little jeremiah]

Doesn’t say how much he’s spent, but here’s who he’s hired (they also worked for CAIR defendents which is telling):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2156147/posts

>>>Instead, Obama hired a team of lawyers, from Sandler, Reif and Young, PC (a lawfirm that has repeatedly defended “unindicted co-conspirators”, the Council on American-Islamic Relations) to prevent the release of his birth records. And over the months, Obama spent considerable sums of money in one legal maneuver after another to keep his documents from being released.

[Iowan]

Thanks, Calpernia

There are many states that aren’t listed.

[Dead Corpse]

The 0bamunists will be rioting in the streets from coast to coast.

Good. I'm tired of coddling communists.

"Let's roll..."

[mkjessup]

Just don’t give in to the temptation to install that full auto conversion for your AR-15, those things are illegal you know. Self defense is fine, but we have to operate by the rules, right?

[Lurking Libertarian]

I hate to throw cold water on a lovely theory, but I am an appellate lawyer and I know something about how the Supreme Court operates. I don't think these cases are going anywhere, and here's why:

Neither Obama nor any of the other defendants named in any of these suits (the FEC, the DNC, etc.) has filed anything in the Supreme Court in response to any of these suits. That is not unusual: Under the Supreme Court's rules, respondents are permitted but not required to file opposing papers, because most cases filed with the Supreme Court are denied without comment. But, if the Respondents don't file opposition, and the Court is seriously thinking about granting the motion for a stay or the petition for certiorari, the Court will almost always request that the Respondent file something. Moreover, if a major constitutional issue is involved, the Court will always request that the Solicitor General (the DOJ's lawyer in the Supreme Court) file something stating the Government's position, even if the Government is not a party to the case.

It is totally unthinkable that the Supreme Court would stop Obama from taking office without requesting that he file oposing papers and without requesting that the Bush DOJ state its position. So my prediction is that, like all the previous motions for a stay, this one will be denied without comment by a vote of 0-9, and that the petitions for certirari will also be denied without comment and without dissent.