PDA

View Full Version : Berg distributed in SCOTUS




bojo68
12-23-2008, 10:34 PM
"Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009."

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

RSLudlum
12-23-2008, 10:38 PM
Berg was on our local midday show today but I didn't get to hear much of it at all

torchbearer
12-23-2008, 10:38 PM
Thanks for the update, I thought it was Jan. 9th.

lynnf
12-24-2008, 03:36 AM
Thanks for the update, I thought it was Jan. 9th.


it is according to that - excerpt:

Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.


it says referred to Court, also. wonder what that means - it doesn't say that for the "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of Janyary 9, 2009"

and this would seem to only be the application for injunction, perhaps the other distribution is for the main case.

lynn

anaconda
12-24-2008, 05:32 AM
HELP! I'm losing my mind!

I thought berg got thrown out with no comment about 2 weeks ago.. What the heck? I'm totally confused...

anaconda
12-24-2008, 05:42 AM
I can't find any update on Alan Keyes' lawsuit...

lynnf
12-24-2008, 01:38 PM
HELP! I'm losing my mind!

I thought berg got thrown out with no comment about 2 weeks ago.. What the heck? I'm totally confused...



nah, that wasn't Berg, it was Donofrio and that other guy - the two other cases, can't place the name right now and have to go back to work.

lynn

bojo68
12-24-2008, 03:47 PM
nah, that wasn't Berg, it was Donofrio and that other guy - the two other cases, can't place the name right now and have to go back to work.

lynn
Cort Wrotnoski

anaconda
12-24-2008, 04:34 PM
nah, that wasn't Berg, it was Donofrio and that other guy - the two other cases, can't place the name right now and have to go back to work.


I thought Berg was tossed a week or so before Donofrio for "lack of standing," and that Donofrio was tossed without comment...

lynnf
12-24-2008, 05:40 PM
I thought Berg was tossed a week or so before Donofrio for "lack of standing," and that Donofrio was tossed without comment...


that was at the district court level. other denials were for the most part by a single justice, Souter. Berg hasn't been taken up by the court yet as a case so it can't have been denied yet by the full court as a case. confusing, isn't it?

lynn

anaconda
12-24-2008, 05:50 PM
that was at the district court level. other denials were for the most part by a single justice, Souter. Berg hasn't been taken up by the court yet as a case so it can't have been denied yet by the full court as a case. confusing, isn't it?

lynn

Yes. But somewhat encouraging. So, which justice(s) is/are responsible for getting the case on the "distributed for conference" calendar?

lynnf
12-25-2008, 09:27 PM
Yes. But somewhat encouraging. So, which justice(s) is/are responsible for getting the case on the "distributed for conference" calendar?

as far as I've been able to tell from looking at several sources, I've seen Thomas and Scalia as credited to be passing the cases to conference, and Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg as credited to denials of various sorts. that gives us an idea as to who's on which side.

lynn

bojo68
12-26-2008, 12:49 PM
as far as I've been able to tell from looking at several sources, I've seen Thomas and Scalia as credited to be passing the cases to conference, and Kennedy, Souter and Ginzburg as credited to denials of various sorts. that gives us an idea as to who's on which side.

lynn

Dr Orly goes into her projections as to where the votes are in her blog awhile back, not sure I agree with some of the assumptions, but you can bet she keeps pretty close track of things.

lynnf
12-27-2008, 09:24 AM
on worldnetdaily today:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84609


"On Berg's Obama Crimes.org website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later."


lynn

tonesforjonesbones
12-27-2008, 12:17 PM
There are 48 cases against illegal alien Obama...I hope they keep em coming. This MUST be addressed because Ahhhhnold is lickin his chops. Tones

Pepsi
12-28-2008, 03:49 AM
Don't mind the "I suck" photo, the video is just about what the woman said about Ron Paul telling her when she ask him about the Obama birth issue.

A woman ask Ron Paul to stand up for the Constitution, and question Obama's eligiblity, he refused, because he might be laughed at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1ywGkajMQ&eurl=http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/ron-paul-pro-constitution-candidate.html

bojo68
12-28-2008, 04:29 AM
While I'll admit that vid is not what a lot of us would like to see, I'm going to have to defend RP to an extent on this. I'm sure there are many here, myself included, that would prefer the straight forward, no holds barred approach here. With that in mind, how many with that opinion is, or ever will be, in a position where their opinion is consequential?? See my point?? Fact is RP gets our ideas out, exposed and considered, in congress, more than any other person. Now if that requires him to back away from some of the more incendiary issues in order to preserve his influence, I say fine. It's better than holding the firm line and being totally irrelevant.
If some other person can make the issue work for them, I don't think any liberty supporter will stop them, probably attempt to help, Paul included.
Anyhow, while it is a bit of a blow to the pride and integrity, it's far better than any other alternative.

Pepsi
12-28-2008, 07:17 AM
A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.

The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.

Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."

On Berg's Obama Crimes.com website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.

WND has reported Berg's case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for 'conference' on January 9," the website said.

"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis,'" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84609

libertarian4321
12-31-2008, 05:08 AM
Don't mind the "I suck" photo, the video is just about what the woman said about Ron Paul telling her when she ask him about the Obama birth issue.

A woman ask Ron Paul to stand up for the Constitution, and question Obama's eligiblity, he refused, because he might be laughed at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1ywGkajMQ&eurl=http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/ron-paul-pro-constitution-candidate.html

Ron Paul blew that woman off probably because he thinks these "Obama is a Kenyan" things are utter nonsense.

BTW, does anyone know who the radio talk show host is on that show?

nodope0695
12-31-2008, 05:12 AM
Thanks for the update, I thought it was Jan. 9th.

The 9th is when the Electoral College meets to cast votes, at least I think so....

nodope0695
12-31-2008, 05:19 AM
While I'll admit that vid is not what a lot of us would like to see, I'm going to have to defend RP to an extent on this. I'm sure there are many here, myself included, that would prefer the straight forward, no holds barred approach here. With that in mind, how many with that opinion is, or ever will be, in a position where their opinion is consequential?? See my point?? Fact is RP gets our ideas out, exposed and considered, in congress, more than any other person. Now if that requires him to back away from some of the more incendiary issues in order to preserve his influence, I say fine. It's better than holding the firm line and being totally irrelevant.
If some other person can make the issue work for them, I don't think any liberty supporter will stop them, probably attempt to help, Paul included.
Anyhow, while it is a bit of a blow to the pride and integrity, it's far better than any other alternative.

Well said. The same goes with the 9-11 stuff. I'm sure RP believes there's more the the "official story" than meets the eye, but by voicing such things, he risks being completely blown off as a wacko.

The Obama citizenship stuff is very incendiary. Should he be disqualified by the SCOTUS, our cities would burn, plain and simple. Remember what happened when those cops were aquitted in the Rodney King trial? King was a complete scum bag, and blacks knew it, nevertheless, blacks burned Watts, and kicked the shit out of an innocent truck driver...just imagine if Obama were outted by the court- Rodney King times 1000. Same reason the jury aquitted OJ in his murder trial....they didn't want riots on their consciences.

No, I don't blame RP for taking a hands off approach at all. The justices will do the same, no matter if its wrong. Would you want national riots on your resume? Me? I've got no axe to grind, I say kick Obama to the curb...he's scum.

libertarian4321
12-31-2008, 05:40 AM
Well said. The same goes with the 9-11 stuff. I'm sure RP believes there's more the the "official story" than meets the eye, but by voicing such things, he risks being completely blown off as a wacko.

The Obama citizenship stuff is very incendiary. Should he be disqualified by the SCOTUS, our cities would burn, plain and simple. Remember what happened when those cops were aquitted in the Rodney King trial? King was a complete scum bag, and blacks knew it, nevertheless, blacks burned Watts, and kicked the shit out of an innocent truck driver...just imagine if Obama were outted by the court- Rodney King times 1000. Same reason the jury aquitted OJ in his murder trial....they didn't want riots on their consciences.

No, I don't blame RP for taking a hands off approach at all. The justices will do the same, no matter if its wrong. Would you want national riots on your resume? Me? I've got no axe to grind, I say kick Obama to the curb...he's scum.

You'd have a lot more than just "blacks" rioting if the election was overturned, I assure you.

torchbearer
12-31-2008, 10:24 AM
The 9th is when the Electoral College meets to cast votes, at least I think so....

I thought they cast there votes back on dec. 15th.

lynnf
12-31-2008, 11:29 AM
I thought they cast there votes back on dec. 15th.


that's right, I think he's getting the certification of fhe electoral college vote by Congress on Jan 8 confused with the actual electoral college vote on Dec 15.

lynn

Truth Warrior
12-31-2008, 11:49 AM
"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

dannno
12-31-2008, 12:26 PM
Ron Paul blew that woman off probably because he thinks these "Obama is a Kenyan" things are utter nonsense.

BTW, does anyone know who the radio talk show host is on that show?

I'll take Ron's word over that crazy lady and right-wing gatekeeper radio host.

Ron Paul said on another radio show that he thought the case should be heard and evidence presented. Obviously he did not have an opinion as to what the actual truth is.

sidster
12-31-2008, 01:48 PM
I'll take Ron's word over that crazy lady and right-wing gatekeeper radio host.

Ron Paul said on another radio show that he thought the case should be heard and evidence presented. Obviously he did not have an opinion as to what the actual truth is.

do you know if anyone has tried to verify this woman's story
or tried to get Ron Paul's side of the story?

She claims she just called him (Ron Paul) up on her cell phone.
This suggest he is very accessible. Someone should call him
up, or try to contact his office. It would help if the person doing
the calling is in fact in his congressional district.

Anyone on these forums is, or has family who are, in 14th
congressional district of Texas?

Isaac Bickerstaff
01-01-2009, 01:22 AM
There should be enough Obama-hating, McCain drones out there that this does not need to be "our" issue. What is going on here? The majority if the unthinking GOP do not believe that the Dems and Repubs are in bed together. How hard can it be to introduce them to the issue and have them run with it?

bojo68
01-01-2009, 03:01 AM
You'd have a lot more than just "blacks" rioting if the election was overturned, I assure you.

You wanna know how much I care what people unwilling to deal with reality think???

sidster
01-01-2009, 03:11 AM
You'd have a lot more than just "blacks" rioting if the election was overturned, I assure you.

You wanna know how much I care what people unwilling to deal with reality think???

one would think there would be riots because the "establishment"
is ignoring the Constitution for the United States of America!

lynnf
01-01-2009, 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertarian4321 View Post
You'd have a lot more than just "blacks" rioting if the election was overturned, I assure you.


one would think there would be riots because the "establishment"
is ignoring the Constitution for the United States of America!


shows just how unpopular the Constitution is with the unenlightened masses. woe is us. how far we as a nation have fallen.

I seem to recall a poll taken in the last year or so in which the respondents said the Constitution was in essence outdated.

lynn