Obama Citizenship

Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday

By Phil

According to today’s Supreme Court Orders, the disposition of Philip Berg’s case Berg v. Obama is likely to be received on Wednesday, January 21. The Supreme Court web site has the following announcement:

Please note that the Supreme Court Building will be closed on January 19 and January 20, 2009.

Concerning this particular Conference, I would like my readers to take notice of the docket for this aspect of the case (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar). While the original docket was a petition for a writ of Certiorari before judgment came down on Berg’s currently pending Third Circuit case in the lower court, that petition was denied but the amicus curiae was granted.

It is important to read a very interesting comment that I updated in this posting about last Monday’s disposition concering this granting:

Lawyer from Missouri’s opinion:

I was reading the first couple of pages and one thing written in the amicus brief should show you that the issues are REAL and people should not get discouraged. On page 2 and 3 are the telling paragraphs 

1. This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and

2. The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and,

3. With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Okay, looking at these 3 provisions, the Supreme Court granted the brief and denied the stay because there is a bigger problem. This issue (e.g. granting writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama) will not only affect Obama, but it will likely impact Biden (Vice President Elect) as well since he was involved and current Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and any other person who is the successor in line to be President because they have knowledge of the fraud and complied with it (e.g. current democratic leadership). The people supporting Obama know the U.S. has a problem and that is why coup de’tat are so effective, but what is critical is that THE MILITARY KNOWS AND ARE ON GUARD NOT TO FOLLOW ANY ORDERS FROM AN INELIGIBLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 

That is why the Supreme Court is being extra cautious here in which they should because there is a possibility of another American civil war. The investigations on all levels are going to impact a whole bunch of people who will need to be removed from serving in a federal capacity. This will likely be an Al Capone feat in bringing this down once all of this goes through.

The next thing to notice is that today’s Conference consideration was over whether or not to grant an injunction against the Electoral College — either the voting, per se, or the congressional certification thereof, pending the disposition of the first docket’s petition for Certiorari (I take that to mean that if the Justices would have granted Cert in the first part, the second part — today’s disposition — might have become moot, for the fact that the first part would have been heard). That is, there is no petition for Certiorari in this second Conference; there is merely the consideration by the Justices of whether or not to order this injunction.

Furthermore, we also see in this second docket that the application for an injunction was denied twice by two of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and then subsequently distributed for Conference on the third try. In my non-attorney opinion, I believe this helps to dispel the insinuation of past Court case behavior that the second Justice to whom a given case was ever applied was merely tossing that case into Conference for the intentional purpose of dismissing the case. I therefore believe it can be established that the Court is treating each and every case as its own situation, as well this body should.

What conclusion can we make of these observable behaviors on the part of the Justices? Another anonymous commentary comes from TheObamaFile.com (embedded within the comment is another worthwhile link on this theory):

To: Drew68

My eighty-nine year old father practiced law for over 50 years.  He was top in his class and clerked for the federal court.  When the Gore case went to the SCOTUS he wrote the chapter, paragraph etc. that the court would decide the case on a piece of paper. He also wrote the vote tally and which justices would vote which way…..He gave the paper to a young judge in town and told him to open it when the decision was published……..He was 100% correct.  He thinks any one who thinks that the SCOTUS is going to ignore or dismiss this case is delusional.  He is much more qualified to judge the case then you are.

The Supreme Court had to wait until now for Berg to have standing.  There is no precedence for this case.  It is a historical decision and they will do everything they can to get it right.   The constitution does not establish who vets the candidate.   Part of their decision will determine who, or what will be held responsible in the future, if not now.  It could destroy the Democratic Party if they are proved to be part of an intentional fraud.  If Obama does not provide the documentation they request, he will be held in contempt, and they WILL obtain it.

Here’s another view of this chess game.  It explains how the SCOTUS has Obama in Check Mate.

Both Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski?s cases said the burden lays with the Secretary of State (SoS) not doing their job.  There is no law that states that it is their job.  So, the SoS would win the case.  In Conference, they probably talked about who was responsible to vet the candidate.  If it wasn?t the SoS of each state, they did not want to waste valuable court time and not hold Obama accountable.  The burden to each SoS to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time and expense.  You will notice that neither cases were completely released but pending.  They can be revisited and opinions may be written on them when a final release is given.  Berg?s case, on the other hand, places the burden on the candidate, the party, and the FEC.  Berg, however, did not have standing until Congress certified the electoral votes to present his case.  He now has standing, as do Keyes and the other California cases.

Writer unknown . . .

Are the above two theories what actually are going to happen? I don’t think anyone knows. What I do know is that the fundamental premises of the amicus curiae have been accepted, and I maintain — again, as a non-attorney who is merely observing what’s going on with a particular bias towards wanting to know more about our President-Elect — that this decision on the part of the Justices — regardless of how many actually agreed thereto — could very well portend to positive things happening with Berg and/or other cases either at the Supreme Court level, those soon to be arriving, or even other lower court cases to be filed or currently pending.

This is my view of events to date. As always, feel free to opine in the commentary section with agreements or disagreements. Either way we look at things, we will know exactly what’s going on by Wednesday (hopefully) of next week.

I will be posting about next week’s pending legal events soon; in the meantime, a current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Update: InvestigatingObama, in a parallel posting of this post, includes another interesting theory from Zapem forums (see especially comment 13).

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on January 16, 2009 (boomark / email).