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)
Look in the sky!
ROFLMAO!
only trying to be kind to berg. some just seem to be unable to accept the kindness of strangers. paranoia, I presume.
Orly is not like that and that is why she will prevail and berg will NOT!
So what do U care about berg, Plarik?
Why not join the winning team? We have more money, more smarts, more of all the things a WINNER wants!
Excellent statement! Especially so as the rule of law and the Constitution become increasingly irrelevant to the way Big Brother does business.
Believe me, the law is much more bewildering than calculus!
Excellent statement! Especially so as the rule of law and the Constitution become increasingly irrelevant to the way Big Brother does business.
How can you raise this question until you know what line of argument Soetoro and Biden are using in their motion papers?
““LL, is my Constructionist postulate to you regarding Art. II, Sect. 3, Clause 3 not covered in the talking points faxed to you this morning? LOL. Sorry, I’m not going to do you homework for you...”
ROFLMAO!”
Can I be a WITNESS? 2 Art. III Section 3 et seq.?
Duh?
Res ipsa loquitur!
I thought this was defending the Constitution and not a “winning team.”
Where is Orly’s case?
Dude you are going to bring negativity on Orly and I doubt that she wants people with a negative attitude speaking on behalf of her in a public forum.
Were you not soliciting money for Berg yesterday?
“Where is Orly’s case?”
?
Does Orly have any cases as close to SCOTUS as Berg?
I thought yesterday you were pretty bullish on Berg’s cases? Today you are negative. What is the deal?
“This may help — it’s hard sometimes to differentiate the 3 cases:
1) Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09. NOTE: THIS CASE IS WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD.
2)Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the ______________
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
3) Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-0225
Interpleader case by Col. Hollister against Soetoro/Obama and Biden”
1) Berg’s case is fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
2) This case is also fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
3) Berg is jumping into unknown legal loop holes here. Do NOT think SCOTUS will want to join Mr. Berg
“This may help — it’s hard sometimes to differentiate the 3 cases:
1) Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09. NOTE: THIS CASE IS WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD.
2)Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the ______________
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
3) Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-0225
Interpleader case by Col. Hollister against Soetoro/Obama and Biden”
1) Berg’s case is fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
2) This case is also fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
3) Berg is jumping into unknown legal loop holes here. Do NOT think SCOTUS will want to join Mr. Berg
No, it does not.
“This may help — it’s hard sometimes to differentiate the 3 cases:
1) Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09. NOTE: THIS CASE IS WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD.
2)Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the ______________
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
3) Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-0225
Interpleader case by Col. Hollister against Soetoro/Obama and Biden”
1) Berg’s case is fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
2) This case is also fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
3) Berg is jumping into unknown legal loop holes here. Do NOT think SCOTUS will want to join Mr. Berg
“This may help — it’s hard sometimes to differentiate the 3 cases:
1) Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09. NOTE: THIS CASE IS WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD.
2)Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the ______________
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
3) Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-0225
Interpleader case by Col. Hollister against Soetoro/Obama and Biden”
1) Berg’s case is fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
2) This case is also fatally flawed, will never be heard by SCOTUS.
3) Berg is jumping into unknown legal loop holes here. Do NOT think SCOTUS will want to join Mr. Berg in this exercise.
OK, side question. I know both Berg and Orly are needing donations to help their cases. If one where to choose just one of these to donate to, which one should they give their money to?
See....the...USA in your Chevrolet America is asking you to call
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA America's the greatest land of all
On a highway, or a road along the levy Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA And see it in your Chevrolet
Traveling East, Travelling West Wherever you go Chevy service is best Southward or North, near place or far There's a Chevrolet dealer for your Chevrolet car
So make a date today to see the USA And see it in your Chevrolet.
Beep...beep
Give it to FreeManN.
Orly does not need money. berg does.
U choose.
Orly will win one of the most important cases in the History of American Jurisprudence.
U choose.
How is Orly being financed then?
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.