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)
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.
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!
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!
I think I’ll go play my guitar now...
PLEASE quit posting the same things over and over and over! And you didn’t explain why these cases are, in your opinion, fatally flawed (unless you explained further down the thread.)
I think your computer is broken, do you keep hitting back and f5, it is re-posting the same thing over and over?
“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.
He found a new thread he wants to spam us with. Unreal.
Yesterday it was Bauer’s phone number (O’s attny), today it is the bash Berg thread and now it is me wasting my money.
;-)
“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.
Now Frantzie defend UR boy berg!
It may be interesting if someone is claiming to represent the interests of a party when they aren’t, if said party is an attorney, what may happen to whomever is presenting their position falsely.
Now defend UR boy berg!
Hey dude did happy hour start early today for you? Get grip.
Berg is not my boy and I doubt Orly would talk on the phone with a spammer like you. Do you have any other fictional friends you speak with “on the phone?”
You are losing it buddy.
My boy Berg? LOL.. I guessed you missed the history here, I am the #1 skeptic of all sides of this.. I question everyone..
Hmmm, are you sure that you know what a mod's job is?
"They've commented on several of these threads that they are just going to let the debate happen."
Except in some obviously extreme cases, that is the purpose of this site. Mods aren't supposed to do the analysis, the Freepers are.
"I think they are damned if they do, damned if they don't..."
You can take that to the bank. Who would even want to take on that job?
Allow me to simplify.
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?
lol.. I hope they are well paid.
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.