Obama Citizenship

Berg v. Obama: Clerk Orders Case Submitted to Merits Panel

By Phil

Attorney Philip J. Berg, the Plaintiff in his Third Circuit Court of Appeals case Berg v. Obama, yesterday had his case referred to a Merits Panel. Below is a posting from FreeRepublic.com regarding the PACER docket:

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) [emphasis from posting]

What does the above mean?…

For starters, take a look at the Internal Operating Procedures of the US 3rd Circuit Appeals Court, specifically chapter 10 (it’s not a long document):

CHAPTER 10. MOTION PRACTICE

10.1 Motion Panels.

A panel is available to receive motions at all times. The chief judge, with the consent of the court, designates standing motions panels (SMPs) to receive from the clerk motions in cases which have not been sent to merits panels. …

10.2.3 Motions on non-emergency matters are distributed to the SMPs as they are complete; i.e., when responses have been filed and any necessary briefing completed. …

10.7 Motions Related to Cases Assigned to Merits Panels.

10.7.1 Motions related to cases assigned to merits panels are generally granted or denied by the presiding judge if they are merely administrative and unrelated to the disposition, unless the presider believes reference to the entire panel is appropriate.

10.7.2 Motions related to scheduling cases for argument are always referred to the entire panel.

There’s more to the process for the applicable Clerk Order than what I’ve shown, above; definitely worth a read if you have a few minutes.

My non-attorney take is that the Clerk has decided (based on the type of case and protocol thereof) to refer Berg’s case to a Merit Panel where, not surprisingly (!), the merits of the case will be considered prior to their being a judgment made (the document goes into more detail on how all of this could transpire: the kind of judgment, the process for making said judgment, etc.).

Does this mean anything in terms of the content of the case? I’m going to say it doesn’t, and instead say this is part of the process. However, I’m sure a number of the lawyer types that have been producing copious amounts of commentary on my blog (thanks for that!) will be happy to extrapolate more judicial theory on this issue.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on February 03, 2009 (boomark / email).