Docket entries, Berg v. Obama Third Circuit Court of Appeals (SEND TO MERITS PANEL)

ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov ^ | 2/3/2009 | rxsid

[little jeremiah]

Bookmark.

[hoosiermama]

Berg IS a democrat. He support Hillary.

[rxsid]

Update

02/03/2009 LETTER from Appellee Federal Election Commission, received pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 1/28/2009 informing the Court that they intend to file a formal brief, unless the Court should grant the Commission's Motion for Summary Affirmance before its formal brief is due. Certificate of Service dated 02/02/2009. (CH)

[April Lexington]

Where? Which Article?

[hoosiermama]

UPDATE

[El Gato]

Now, while I would agree that Obama has not made it abundantly clear about his qualifications, at the same time I don’t see that he’s done anything so different than many other candidates.

His situation is different. What other cannidate in anything like recent times, had a foreign national, who never became even a legal resident, let alone a citizen? Even Chester Arthur's father eventually was naturalized, while Obama's father, who apparently had a big influence on him, even in abstenia, went home to Kenya. Meanwhile the man, Barrack Jr, was raised for some of very formative years in a foreign country, attending their schools as one of them. So, per the very purpose of the Natural Born Citizen requirement, that of avoiding foreign influence in the office of the President, Obama merits higher scrutiny. Now, if he had practiced his vaunted "transparency" last summer and granted access to either his Certification or Certificate, and preferably the latter, of birth, since the former may not contain sufficient information for a determination of natural born status, well then the issue would have been hashed out and be over by now. Instead he sent his lawyers to argue standing and other technicalities that do no go to the truth of the issue.

He either is or is not eligible to the office of President. I for one would like to know "the truth" of that matter. Wouldn't you?

[little jeremiah]

Ping me if they reply to your question about whether they want to know the truth or not.

[little jeremiah]

I do apologize for being ignorant in legalese, even the simplest. Could you or someone explain what comment #223 means?

[BrerLion]

ignorant in legalese, even the simplest

Me too! Please?

[hoosiermama]

02/03/2009 LETTER from Appellee Federal Election Commission, received pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 1/28/2009 informing the Court that they intend to file a formal brief, unless the Court should grant the Commission's Motion for Summary Affirmance before its formal brief is due. Certificate of Service dated 02/02/2009. (CH)

A formal brief goes into a great deal of detail and can be quite lengthy. Summary Affirmation is more or less a synopsis. They are just letting the court know that if the court does not accept their concise form they intend to file the more complete form. Back at post 8, I think is an out line for the rules, you may want to download it. It is pdf.

[hoosiermama]

10.6 Summary Action. The court, sua sponte or upon motion by a party, may take summary action affirming, reversing, vacating, modifying, setting aside, or remanding the judgment, decree, or order appealed from; dismissing an appeal; granting ordenying a petition for review; or granting or refusing enforcement of the order of an administrative agency if it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented or that subsequent precedent or a change in circumstances warrants such action.

Before taking summary action, the court will afford the parties an opportunity to submit argument in support of or in opposition to such disposition if briefs on the merits have not already been filed.

Summary action may be taken only by unanimous vote of the panel. If a motion panel determines that summary action is not appropriate at that time, it may, in lieu of denial, refer the matter to the merits panel without decision and without prejudice.

[hoosiermama]

This is a motion for summary Affirmance. and has been

refer the matter to the merits panel without decision and without prejudice.

Does this help you understand what is happening?

[BP2]

Here's the FEC response:

"...unless the Court should grant the Commission's Motion for Summary Affirmation before it's formal brief is due on February 19, 2009."

Awfully wishful thinking there, Steve Hajjar.

[little jeremiah]

WHen I say that I am dumb about legal stuff I am not exaggerating. So the 0bama side is saying that they may file something? Is this right?

[Plummz]

Is that Revelation 13?

[BrerLion]

Thank you very much. (I have to confess, I’m still re-reading for about the eighth time, but I’ll get it... I’ll try to not fall too far behind the stragglers :)

[mtdrake]

Today's swearing in of hilary was simply ceremonial. She was officially sworn in back in Jan, the 21st I believe.

That aside, the fact that there is still credible doubt as to bo’s constitutional qualification to be POTUS is frightening. I hope that this is resolved and that little barry gets sent packing. Who knows, maybe he will end up in Leavenworth (sp) with some of the club gittmo visitors?

[hoosiermama]

No it's the FEC who is filing a response...

BP is Obama et al also filing a response?

[little jeremiah]

FEC - but are they a party to the suit? I thought they were the object of the suit, alongside of 0bama.

You realize you’re explaining to a seriously real ignoramous. I read but the legal stuff really floors me.

[BrerLion]

pssst. .. L J... I really don't understand a word... I'm not gonna say anything... but I might ask you to explain it to me after class :)