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

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

[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)

[Frantzie]

I think __________ is freaking out with spamming this thread because Berg’s is getting very close.

Dear Leader’s “attorneys” claiming factcheck.org as some form of evidence is laughable. As one person said - they put it in the footnotes because if it was in the respsnse they might get disbarred.

They gave Berg an opening he can drive a truck through.

At what point does spamming a thread become ABUSE?

My money is still on Orly and Berg. Orly may need to be more cautious with the people she associates with.

[FreeManN]

berg could not drive a truck through the Grand Canyon even if said truck was on auto-pilot.

But go ahead and waste your money on berg. We don’t need your money, Frantzie!

[MilspecRob]

We don’t need your money

Then whats that big DONATE buton doing on Orly"s site

[Frantzie]

Who is “we” as in “we don’t need your money”? Is we - Bauer and Obama? TARP money?

Why are you spamming the thread with the same messages?

Yesterday you were saying nice things about Berg? What happened? You have a grand mal seizure or something? Fell off the wagon maybe?

[FreeManN]

“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.

[FreeManN]

berg could not drive a truck through the Grand Canyon even if said truck was on auto-pilot.

But go ahead and waste your money on berg. We don’t need your money, Frantzie!

[mnehring]

Very good point, I’m going to drop Orly a note and see if this person in question really represents her interest.

[rodguy911]

It's sad since this is what often separates us from the dem/rats. They stick together no matter what and we eat our own on a regular basis. Too many egos running wild. Mix in a few trolls and you have a disaster. Too bad the mods don't want to do their job.

[mnehring]

Too bad the mods don't want to do their job.

They've commented on several of these threads that they are just going to let the debate happen. I think they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.. if they started zotting folks that group a said where trolls, group b would damn them for being on the other side and vice versa (times the dozen or so different sides to this)..

[FreeManN]

berg could not drive a truck through the Grand Canyon even if said truck was on auto-pilot.

But go ahead and waste your money on berg. We don’t need your money, Frantzie!

[FreeManN]

“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.

[rodguy911]

Five posts saying the same thing in the scope of 28 posts is ridiculous.

[Frantzie]

Orly is a good lady and she is fighting very hard to save the Constitution. She does not need to associate with very negative people like this. I truly doubt she is anything to do with this person.

Phil Berg was the first one out there trying to stop this fraud and disaster.

I applaud all of their efforts in trying to protect the Constitution. Berg, Leo, Cort, Orly, Pidgeon, Strunk, and all the others.

Berg may be a Hillary guy but I think he really cares about the Constitution and I know Orly does.

Thanks for contacting Orly.

[FreeManN]

answer them intelligently or we continue

[mnehring]

Says more about the side that person is taking than the side they are opposing, that’s why I sent a message to Orly’s camp to see if this person really is representing them. Especially the part about not donating to her when she has a big donate button on her site.

[FreeManN]

“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.

[FreeManN]

“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.

[Iowan]

Thanks for the update, LucyT

Ping.

[rodguy911]

Don’t ever post to me idiot! Why don’t you go back to the DU where you and the other mental whack jobs belong.

[Frantzie]

?? What is with this guy? He seemed pretty normal up to yesterday and he started doing this. He was postive about Berg etc.

The multiple spamming of this thread with the same message over and over is abuse.