Berg v Obama et al. Bites Dust

Posted on January 9, 2009 by Dr. Conspiracy

The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama, #08-570 without comment. That’s the end of this round of Berg v. Obama at the Supreme Court.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I am not a real doctor. I have a Master's Degree.
This entry was posted in Lawsuits, Philip Berg, Supreme Court and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Berg v Obama et al. Bites Dust

  1. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 9, 2009 at 3:35 pm  (Quote)

    That’s great news, but I can’t seem to find any confirming documents.

    Can you give me a link?

  2. M Schmidt says:
    January 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    What about this case ?

    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 the 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) denied by Justice Souter.
    Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
    Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    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.

  3. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    According to The Betrayal website, it will be Monday. Which all the other cases have taken the same course, Donofrio, Wrotnowinski.

  4. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 4:29 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Which one is the one you posted?

  5. Tes says:
    January 9, 2009 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    There isn’t a link yet, as the Court issues the “orders list” on Mondays. On Monday, check here: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html
    — or — here: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

    The report that the writ was denied is based on the general practice that when the court grants writ, it announces the grant the same day. Today, it granted writ in four cases, as shown here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/010909zr.pdf

    Berg is not listed and, therefore, it is highly probable that the petition was denied.

    This relates to the PETITION, and not to the APPLICATION. The Court is scheduled to rule on the Application next Friday. (Unsubstantiated reports at AmericasRight.com comments indicate that Monday’s order list *could* include denial of application as well.

  6. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    I commend everyone’s concern for details, precision and verifiability. It does you credit! Unfortunately, I don’t have a hyperlink you can use to verify. If I were you, I’d be skeptical and wait until Monday.

  7. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 9, 2009 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    Since the application (I am assuming) relates to the case, I figured they’d be able to deny both.

    In computing, a program that has ended but still has some subprogram running untethered to the (dead) main program is called a zombie process.

    I suppose that would make 08A505 a zombie application. Brains!

  8. bogus info says:
    January 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm  (Quote)

    That Linda person on Berg’s website is saying that one of Obama’s agents has been threatening her via emails and phone calls. Then she brought up that Michele Obama had her licensed revoked for criminal reasons. She said something about Newt G. knew about the Khalidi? tapes. She thinks SCOTUS will rule in Berg’s favor. She is all over the place.

  9. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 11:56 am  (Quote)

    Pennsylvania (Phil Berg): (01/12/09)
    January 9: DENIED write of certiorari before judgment
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009 / January 16, 2009
    Berg v. Obama
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2663
    Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Writ of Certiorari “Before Judgment”
    Submitted by Phil on Mon, Jan 12, 20096 Comments
    According to today’s Orders, Berg v. Obama (Phil Berg, Plaintiff) has been denied a writ of Certiorari:

    08-570 BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.

    The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as

    amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari

    before judgment is denied.

    Now, legal eagles, “the motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.” What does that mean?

  10. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/bergs-case-was-dismissed-but-my-case-is.html

    Monday, January 12, 2009
    Berg’s case was dismissed, but my case is still alive and I am filing a request for Justices to recuse themselves from swearing Obama on the 20th

  11. laughinghysterically says:
    January 12, 2009 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    This is too rich. Apparently her stupidity knows no bounds! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!

    I am sure the Justices are gonna LOVE this one. And, let the games continue!

  12. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 5:55 pm  (Quote)

    LH,

    What are Doc Orly’s chances of getting the Judges to recuse themselves?

  13. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    I wonder…I’m pretty sure that the oath of office is not required to be administered by the Chief Justice.

    It would be awesome to see Roberts recuse himself and send someone else to administer the oath.

  14. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    Though I should point out that there’s approximately zero chance of that happening.

  15. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm  (Quote)

    I think the chances of that happening are slim and none. But, we shall see.

  16. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:46 pm  (Quote)

    Does this person actually believe this?

    “URGENT From Lisa regarding Today’s SCOTUS ruling written by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009

    Here is a very brief explanation of what today’s ruling means to us…

    What today’s ruling means is that WE’RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama – in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn’t resolved.

    If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won’t be sworn in. We jsut don’t know what might happen next.

    In the meantime, Bill Anderson’s motion for “permission” to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.

    WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!”

  17. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    Gee, common sense tells me this by looking at the docket. How many times has the application been denied? Three times that I count. Now, what does “common sense” tell you about this application being granted on Jan. 20th?

    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 the 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) denied by Justice Souter.
    Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
    Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    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.
    Jan 12 2009 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson GRANTED.
    Jan 12 2009 Petition DENIED.

  18. laughinghysterically says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm  (Quote)

    The odd thing about common sense is how uncommon it is for some.

    Linda is , as usual, delusional.

  19. bogus info says:
    January 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    That is putting it mildly.

  20. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 12, 2009 at 8:27 pm  (Quote)

    ‘s not pendin’! ‘s passed on! This case is no more! It has ceased to be! ‘s expired and gone to meet its maker! ‘s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t submitted an amicus it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-LAWSUIT!!

  21. jazz says:
    January 12, 2009 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    Hello, to whom ever owns this site….I have a question. I know the Berg case is denied but, the breif filed by Bill Anderson was granted….what does that mean??? And does it effect the denied berg case??? I just want to know becuz the “obama-haterz” are claiming the granted brief is a “sign of hope”. Lmao! Its laghable I know. But, I am just curious of what the granted brief actually means?

    And why{in your opinion} did they grant it in the first place?

    Thank you and have great day!

  22. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 12, 2009 at 9:29 pm  (Quote)

    I think a better question would be: when would the Court ever deny the ability to file an amicus?

  23. jazz says:
    January 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm  (Quote)

    Ok so you still haven’t answered my question.

    What does it mean? Gosh! I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know.

    so will someone PLEASE TELL ME? Geze, its a simple question if you know!

  24. laughinghysterically says:
    January 12, 2009 at 11:27 pm  (Quote)

    It simply a procedural formality, nothing more. The amicus is moot because cert is denied. Look at the many other orders that do the exact same thing, nothing to see there, move along.

  25. jazz says:
    January 12, 2009 at 11:55 pm  (Quote)

    Thank you for informing me. 🙂

  26. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 13, 2009 at 12:26 am  (Quote)

    Actually we do know what happens next. Unfortunately, Linda who on Friday said not to listen to rumors of case denied, correctly states at least technically that Berg could still be heard in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and if denied there appeal to the Supreme Court yet again. However, what exactly is the significance of saying that a person who jumped form the 100th floor of a tall building and is now a few feet from the ground is “still alive”?

  27. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 13, 2009 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    Accepting the Amicus is a formality. I suppose it means it was considered alongside Berg’s brief when the whole thing was canned.

  28. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 13, 2009 at 12:50 am  (Quote)

    Technically it’s still alive at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

  29. Michelle says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    I’m not a birth certificate fan, I’m a person who feels the Constitution has been broken.

    Nevertheless, the opinions here are NOT what Berg has written on his website. It specifically says that he had a case pending in the Appellate Division. He was asking the SCOTUS to grant certiorari even though judgment wasn’t reached in the lower court. The SCOTUS simply said no to that request.

    When you have a case pending in the lower court, you have the right to ask a higher court for something, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. The SCOTUS also has the right to wait and see what the lower court does, which is happened in this decision.

    If people insist on making comments about the Berg case, at least do your homework and know what you’re talking about. Sheesh!

  30. Michelle says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:11 am  (Quote)

    In fact, this blog isn’t very factual at all.

    Dr. Conspiracy should go do some research before he attempts to make a review about things he has no knowledge about.

  31. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:14 am  (Quote)

    The comments are open for any one who feels the need to “set the record straight”. All comments are read (I hope) and corrections made when warranted.

  32. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    You are one cool cat.

  33. Michelle says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:26 am  (Quote)

    I noticed your comments are open which is more than I can say for some sites, including MSNBC.

    However, your facts aren’t correct. You assumed in this article, for instance, that Berg was dismissed, never to see his face again. That is NOT what happened in this decision. If you were interested in the truth, you would correct your comments.

    You did it again in Donofrio v. Wells. I had to make 5 comments to correct the unfactualness there, too.

    Does anyone do any research before they post a blog these days? Seriously!

  34. Michelle says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:29 am  (Quote)

    Case in point, do any of you even know what Rule 11 is pertaining to the Berg case?

    If not, you should have looked it up. It would explain exactly what happened here.

    I appreciate people having an interest, finally, in their Constitution, but to make a mockery of it is communism to me.

  35. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 11:52 am  (Quote)

    The article “Berg v Obama et al. Bites Dust” did not meet this blog’s editorial standards and has been updated to more precisely and unambiguously state the facts. Thanks for your comment.

  36. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    Rule 11 says

    By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:…have evidentiary support

    Any number of claims made in Berg v Obama et al. violate, in my opinion, that rule. The “Dudley Do Right” Canadian birth certificate, comes to mind as the winner of the silliness award. More substantial is the “grandmother tape” claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

    That is, reasonable inquiry would not show that Obama was born in Canada, or that his step grandmother said he was born in Kenya.

  37. bogus info says:
    January 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    Michelle,

    Dr. C. has the Supreme Court Rules posted here. It’s under the section Sources of information, in the “Bookmarks” section.

  38. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 15, 2009 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    We differ on who is making a “mockery of the constitution”. I think those who try to replace the Supreme Court with the Inferior Court of Uninformed nObama Bloggers (ICUNB), are the ones making a mockery of the constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.