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)
“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.
Well when people are here bashing Berg and are supposedly working with Orly then my opinion of Orly is dropping. I trust her but not some of the people she appears to be associating with.
This appears to have happened overnight. One of her supposed “supporters” sent me an email with FU. Obots do not even do that. I still trust Orly and Phil Berg was the first person with the guts to go out there and fight.
Looks like some people are trying to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory or they are working for the other team..
A few minutes ago Obama canceled energy leases in Utah which is really payback to the Saudis and Indonesia. Clinton did the same thing with clean coal in utah.
We are being sold out to the Saudis just like what happened in emerging Islamic UK.
Although I studies Finance at one of the Greatest Business Schools in the USA, I am not a financial adviser. I am a legal adviser.
“How is Orly being financed then?”
Although I studies Finance at one of the Greatest Business Schools in the USA, I am not a financial adviser. I am a legal adviser.
Maybe I worded that wrong, you said Berg needed the money, not Orly, that implies that her donations are fine?
“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.
berg otoh appears to have a desperate need for money to support his desperate legal cases.
Another swing, another miss.
Article III, section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Nope, nothing there about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear cases against the President of the United States. Want to keep trying?
Thanks.. I think the question has been popping up more, who is really moving forward and using the money they have. This must be costing millions for each of them. Sounds like Berg has a lot of activity and is using a lot of funds.
bttt
berg is wasting a lot of other people’s money.
But I really don’t care about berg’s circus.
It is opening fine for me.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
“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.
Wow, Orly served the CIA in proxy of Business International? Does she really want to go there?
Did I miss something. Wasn’t this person saying nice things about Berg yesterday?
Also any idea why they keep posting the same messages over and over?
U ain’t seen nothing yet!
But to answer UR “rhetorical” question, she did it therefore she does.
“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.
I don’t know, just trying to catch up here... I am a skeptic on all sides of the issue (that’s just how I roll) but lately, I can’t seem to figure out who is really leading the charge.
It seems when it gets down to brass tacks, this all comes down to who is taking the most action and needs public support. If one camp isn’t spending anything, makes you wonder what they are doing other than paperwork. If one camp is burning through money, are they spending it well or are they taking a lot of action?
I am a lawyer. If I need money, I advertise like berg.
If I am really desperate for money like berg I take money from anyone who is dumb enough to give me money.
Then I throw a bunch of cases against the wall of Justice desperately hoping some case, any case will stick.
That in a nutshell is Phil Berg.
BTW, how is his case against “W” for “causing 911” going?
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.