Here is the latest on the Philip J Berg petition to the US Supreme Court:
“Justice Souter denies injunction for stay of presidential election
by Obama Crimes on Tue 04 Nov 2008 12:54 PM EST
Justice Souter’s Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg’s application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied. (The U. S. Supreme Court Docket is below.)
The defendants are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December first, after which Mr. Berg will have an opportunity to respond.
No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391”
Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:
Citizen WElls 
…so…Obama has to respond?!?
Isn’t this excellent news?!?!?!?
…or is the Obama campaign just gonna be able to come up with something quietly while America basks in the glory of Obamination.
WELL, to be expected! Here’s a poem copied and pasted from a comment section of a Washington Times story on Rezko/Obama land deal.
GOOD get out the VOTE message.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/fbi-asked-questions-on-rezko-land-deal/
November 4, 2008 at 8:22 a.m.
By: SpecialistMC
Twas the Night Before Elections
‘Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!
I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.
When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys
They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!
He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink
He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!
‘ On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi’
He screamed at the pairs!
They took off for his cause
And as he
flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!
So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!
There are many ways to skin a cat!
WELL, OBAMA LIED AGAIN!!!
http://theamericanspectator.org/archives/2008/11/03/aunt-zeitunis-protectors
Are you sure you reported that correctly:
Usually if a case is denied a hearing at the Supreme Court it is the plaintiff (and not the defendant of the original case which is being reviewed) who is given the option to respond. That is to give the plaintiff an 2nd chance to convince the judge that his case is worth the Supreme Court’s time.
Since the case was denied there was no “Writ of Certiorari” – that means the supreme court will not be reviewing Berg’s case and Obama is not required to answer.The action failed.
Berg, by contrast may wish to reply to Justice Souter and provide reasons why he should reconsider presenting this case to SCOTUS. Even if he does, it will be denied because the lower court dismissed Berg’s case on technically (but not morally) correct grounds.
Just to be clear here: Berg is asking for judicial review of his original Berg vs Obama case which was dismissed. He cannot bring into play any of his subsequent cases (e.g. the state actions or the electoral college action) – since they are different cases and therefore cannot be appealed with this case which the court sees as unrelated.
Unfortunately for Berg, unless he can present credible evidence that shows the original judge acted incorrectly then it’s going to be tough. If I were in his shoes I’d want to pull out and get some better evidence before bringing it to another court.
The worst thing is that if he fails at SCOTUS, it is game over for us. That is why it is foolish to try to take a case to the supreme court without adequate preparation.
I know this is sad news – but the way I see it Berg’s case was obviously flawed to begin with. The dismissal was only to be expected because he neither demonstrated standing nor did he present sufficient evidence. Berg is a good guy but he’s so obviously out of his depth.
JG
Doesn’t the writ of certioriari mean that Obama has to submit all of his defense papers? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks!
I read up on it: writ of certioriari is another word for judicial review where a superior court reviews a decision made by a lower court to see if it is correct.
There’s a lot of reasons why an Associate justice might dismiss a case brought to the Supreme court, for example it might be wrongly filed, it might appear to be frivolous, or it might not be important enough to merit the time of the highest court in the land.
In this case I suspect that it’s a combination of the fact that Berg has gone directly to the Supreme court without bringing a more conventional appeal and that he never presented conclusive evidence in the first place so it cannot be argued that the original judge misinterpreted that evidence.
Or it could be because in previous half-baked actions Berg was seeking to disbar Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor.
Why do you think the case was dismissed?
I think Hillary’s, DEDICATED FANS, have a fierce plan to bring her back in 4 years.
Most people are starting to talk like BO cannot do much damage in 4 years.
Only problem is, I believe the THUG mentality will keep most NORMAL PEOPLE intimidated.
There has to be some sort of committment on the part of the public, for MEDIA PUNISHMENT, for their involvement in this election, over the next 4 years.
If this phase does not happen, we could have consequences I do not want to think about.
On the other hand, I am hearing MANY reports that BO will not win.
CW
As far as this case is concerned, maybe the citizens will RISE UP and take it to a new level… we should wait out the next few days, and then start contacting our politicians. I do not think Berg will be alone.
Most people are starting to talk like BO cannot do much damage in 4 years.
4 years is enough time to appoint 2 supreme court judges. That will guarantee that Roe v Wade remains unchallenged for another 20 years. Now what were you saying about damage again?
Since the electoral college is really who votes in the President, what can we do between now and January to get Obama to provide proof he was born here. I know you were sometimes critical of Berg, but now it is YOUR chance to offer a suggestion as to what WOULD WORK in this situation. Does the electoral college ask to verify citizenship. Is there a list we can use to contact people between now and the oath of office, to ask them to demand the citizenship proof? Thank you.
I have written quite a bit about this and contacted the 50 states, with emphasis on NC.
24 possible Electors have filed suit.
The Electors swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
My position.
Even though the states have control up until the Electors vote, they are saying they are powerless to remove a candidate. I find no law that states that.
However, the tenth amendment gives power to the people not reserved for the federal Govt and the states. Philip J Berg has stated he will address the Electoral College aspect next.
Start by reading my posts over the past several weeks and stay tuned.
Thanks.
This is a sad day for our nation..God be with us all.
Does the electoral college ask to verify citizenship. Is there a list we can use to contact people between now and the oath of office, to ask them to demand the citizenship proof? Thank you.
First of all, be clear what you are arguing. It seems that folks seem to be confused about what point we are making here – is it that he’s not a citizen or just not a “natural born citizen”. There’s a critical difference.
Obama has held office in his state and in the Senate for many years: Both of these jobs require citizenship as a qualification. Had he not been a citizen this would have created obvious problems when the treasury paid his salary.
I think the idea he is not a citizen is preposterous. I think it’s more reasonable to doubt that he is a natural born citizen, however as yet we do not have any conclusive evidence with which to prove this theory.
On that basis alone I’d advise Berg to step down before he does any more damage. Now lets address the specifics of the new case:
Remember, the Democratic electors (the ones who might have standing) are Democratic Party appointees, chosen because of their loyalty to the party and it’s leadership.
It’s unlikely that Berg is going to be able to convince one to break his pledge to vote for the Democratic Party candidate, especially given his lack of evidence, poor reputation and conduct over the last few months. He lost what little credibility he had when his first case was dismissed as frivolous.
From what I can tell, Berg thinks he can use a court order to compel the individual electors to demand proof of citizenship – even if that were in question there does not seem to be any constitutional basis for such an order as the constitution does not require the individual electors to make such a verification.
Try to see this from the perspective of the Democratic electors – those are the folks he has to convince. Is this action going to look sensible to them… if not it’s a waste of time.
I know y’all want to act fast and end this business but the sad truth is that this action is truly doomed. Berg brought the case before he had evidence based on a hokey legal theory. The case was dismissed with prejudice which means it stands forever.
We would have been better off had he not brought the case because the weaknesses of his case would not have been exposed.
Why do “we, the people” not have standing to ask the question since it is our constitution that protects our rights? And we have the right to have a President that has legitimate documents(as specified in the constitution)? Since WE are the people,we should have the right to ask the question based on the fact that we created the government that is by the people and for the people. Wouldn’t the fact that we ARE the people give US the standing to ask the Presidential candidate for his proof of natural citizenship? What body is responsible for enforcing verification of eligibility of presidential candidates and wouldn’t they also have standing? Please don’t tell me that there is no person that is responsible for this very important issue.
Just because Obama has served in political office at a state level does not prove that he is a natural born citizen. I had to furnish legitimate documents to teach. Surely politicians have to furnish legitimate documents to qualify as a legislator? Why would any politician lock up all their records? Why would they not want to assure the public with proof? How can a case be dismissed with predjudice and against whom is the predjudice(Obama for not showing proof or Berg for not having enough proof?)
Would it be a federal offense for an elector to vote for a candidate that is possibly ineligible ? Would that be a basis to get an elector to ask for proof?
I have been reading this thread and it sounds more like some people have an axe to grind. The people have voted Obama into office by quite a large margin. He has begun to be briefed on sensitive intel. The world has rejoiced that the American people have choosen the way they have. So whats the movite here? I have already researched this issue and know the Wikipedia entries in English and Italian. Already heard the stories about delayed plane trips. So lets come forth and be honest with the axe grinding issue.
there is a petition circulating to force the PA legislature to withhold their electorial votes until Obama produces proof he is natural born.
You can start a similar petition in your state. For a copy you can email me at ecoquesttom@aol.com
Ron, we most certainly have an axe to grind. The “axe” is anyone running for the highest office in the world who is not abiding by the Constitution and the laws governing running. It is obvious to anyone who cares to defend our Constitution that this man has made no serious attempt to comply, and it is bad enough that he would get into office, but imagine who might next run, and what additional laws might be broken to win the office!! This is a terrible precedent.
😀 Does the electoral college ask to verify citizenship. Is there a list we can use to contact people between now and the oath of office, to ask them to demand the citizenship proof? Thank you.