More on that Birth Certificate thing...

[Tilted]

I certainly can’t argue over interpretation at this point. The only thing I can deduce is there has to be certain criteria met before a petition will be entered into the docket. It appears to me that certain meritorious factors (beyond procedural) have to be met; otherwise the court would be overwhelmed with cases.

This has certainly been educational. Now I have to take some aspirin for my headache.

Yeah, I've figured out a few things myself, that I had either forgotten or never understood to begin with.

From a purely academic perspective, it is ashame that the petition will, in my opinion, be denied. I realize now that there is a very interesting constitutional question that, although it is tangential to the issue at hand, could be necessitated by a SCOTUS perusal of this case and would likely make Berg's requests ancillary.

 

[PsyOps]

Yeah, I've figured out a few things myself, that I had either forgotten or never understood to begin with.

From a purely academic perspective, it is ashame that the petition will, in my opinion, be denied. I realize now that there is a very interesting constitutional question that, although it is tangential to the issue at hand, could be necessitated by a SCOTUS perusal of this case and would likely make Berg's requests ancillary.

I think this gets back to my original point to Oyster and Kerad is if there were absolutely no merits to this case it would not have made it to the docket. I'm not arguing this from a "I want the election to be deemed invalid" standpoint; I'm strictly coming from a validity/constitutional standpoint. Oyster and Kerad don't get that. They are coming from a biased, emotional, "not my guy" standpoint.

 

[Kerad]

...I'm not arguing this from a "I want the election to be deemed invalid" standpoint; I'm strictly coming from a validity/constitutional standpoint. Oyster and Kerad don't get that. They are coming from a biased, emotional, "not my guy" standpoint.

That's a bunch of crap.

I responded to the numerous cries of "Why hasn't Obama given his birth certificate to the Supreme Court yet?!?!" with proof that he has not been ordered, asked or requested to.

The biased, emotional stuff is coming from you and your buddies who erroneously claimed that he was ordered to, or is otherwise currently obligated to do so.

 

[PsyOps]

That's a bunch of crap.

I responded to the numerous cries of "Why hasn't Obama given his birth certificate to the Supreme Court yet?!?!" with proof that he has not been ordered, asked or requested to.

The biased, emotional stuff is coming from you and your buddies who erroneously claimed that he was ordered to, or is otherwise currently obligated to do so.

So, you have proof that...

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)

... has nothing to do with USSC requesting BO produce the vaulted copy of his HI BC. It's a reference to something else and us quacks are just looking for something to pin on BO?

Please provide the sources for this information. I have provided this docket with Berg's name on it along with articles that show what it's about. Now the burden is on you to provide sources to the contrary.

Of course I know what your answer is... "I'm not going to do your homework for you. I don't have to prove a negative..." or some like that.

 

[ylexot]

So, you have proof that...



... has nothing to do with USSC requesting BO produce the vaulted copy of his HI BC. It's a reference to something else and us quacks are just looking for something to pin on BO?

Please provide the sources for this information. I have provided this docket with Berg's name on it along with articles that show what it's about. Now the burden is on you to provide sources to the contrary.

Of course I know what your answer is... "I'm not going to do your homework for you. I don't have to prove a negative..." or some like that.

I have provided a link and quote from Berg's website that refutes your assertion. :shrug:

 

[Kerad]

So, you have proof that...



... has nothing to do with USSC requesting BO produce the vaulted copy of his HI BC. It's a reference to something else and us quacks are just looking for something to pin on BO?

Please provide the sources for this information. I have provided this docket with Berg's name on it along with articles that show what it's about. Now the burden is on you to provide sources to the contrary.

Of course I know what your answer is... "I'm not going to do your homework for you. I don't have to prove a negative..." or some like that.

I see what you think you're doing, there.


"Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed" does not equate to "Obama ordered to produce a birth certificate to the Supreme Court. You know that. Or you should, as it's been adequately explained more than once in this thread.

In fact, that crackpot's own website clearly states that he is not aware of any such order.


You see "Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed" and think "This proves all my suspicions!!!", when it fact it's pretty much a standard, procedural entry...which doesn't order or ask anything from Obama.


Don't hold your breath on it going much further.

 

[PsyOps]

I have provided a link and quote from Berg's website that refutes your assertion. :shrug:

Okay... I must've missed it. Help me out.

 

[PsyOps]

I see what you think you're doing, there.


"Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed" does not equate to "Obama ordered to produce a birth certificate to the Supreme Court. You know that. Or you should, as it's been adequately explained more than once in this thread.

In fact, that crackpot's own website clearly states that he is not aware of any such order.


You see "Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed" and think "This proves all my suspicions!!!", when it fact it's pretty much a standard, procedural entry...which doesn't order or ask anything from Obama.


Don't hold your breath on it going much further.

Okay Kerad, I'm not going to attack your reading comprehension here but I did not say ORDERED... I wrote:

... has nothing to do with USSC requesting BO produce the vaulted copy of his HI BC

All I'm simply asking you is does this docket (No. 08-570) TO YOU, refer to Souter REQUESTING BO produce this BC kept in a vault in HI? That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Or do you believe it refers to something else? If it's something else, what is it and what is your source for what it is?

 

[ylexot]

Okay... I must've missed it. Help me out.

http://forums.somd.com/3384674-post206.html

 

[Kerad]

All I'm simply asking you is does this docket (No. 08-570) TO YOU, refer to Souter REQUESTING BO produce this BC kept in a vault in HI? That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Or do you believe it refers to something else? If it's something else, what is it and what is your source for what it is?

No.

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) denied by Justice Souter.

The petition for writ of certiorari was submitted on the 30th. This writ does nothing in regards to requesting Obama to do anything. It is a request for the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision. A decision (by the Supreme Court on whether or not it will review the case) is due on December 1st.

The next day, Berg applied for an injunction that would basically halt the election. This injunction was submitted to Souter, who denied it on November 3rd.


There is nothing here that would lead me to conclude that Souter did anything besides deny Berg's application for an injunction.


Definition: Certiorari, Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.

Writ of Certiorari. A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.

Cert. Denied. The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited.

 

[This_person]

Okay Kerad, I'm not going to attack your reading comprehension here but I did not say ORDERED... I wrote:



All I'm simply asking you is does this docket (No. 08-570) TO YOU, refer to Souter REQUESTING BO produce this BC kept in a vault in HI? That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Or do you believe it refers to something else? If it's something else, what is it and what is your source for what it is?

Kerad is clearly right. Clearly, the response that is due by Dec 1st is a SCOTUS - Pres (elect) "shout out", and that's it.

 

[PsyOps]

No.



The petition for writ of certiorari was submitted on the 30th. This writ does nothing in regards to requesting Obama to do anything. It is a request for the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision. A decision (by the Supreme Court on whether or not it will review the case) is due on December 1st.

The next day, Berg applied for an injunction that would basically halt the election. This injunction was submitted to Souter, who denied it on November 3rd.


There is nothing here that would lead me to conclude that Souter did anything besides deny Berg's application for an injunction.


Definition: Certiorari, Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Man we’ve done this already. You’re talking about a different case. Docket No. 08A391 was requesting to halt the election. This was denied.

Docket No. 08-570 is the request for BO to produce the BC.

 

[PsyOps]

http://forums.somd.com/3384674-post206.html

Mr. Berg has been receiving phone calls today asking for a copy of "the order from the Supreme Court requiring that Obama produce his citizenship documentation."

Mr. Berg has not received notification of any such order or anything similar to it, nor is it posted on the Supreme Court website.

This must be regarded as an unfounded rumor until it appears on the Supreme Court website or Mr. Berg receives notification.

If and when the Court does issue such an order, we will post it immediately.

This proves nothing. First of all you provided a link in that link called "obamacrimes" that doesn't even contain this quote. So where did you get it first of all. And what is the timeframe? Could it be that it hadn't been entered into the docket yet?

Secondly, it's obviously on the website because I have plugged it several times. And there is not ORDER for BO to produce the BC, it is a request.

If Docket No. 08-570 is not regarding the request for the BC and it has Berg's name on it and it hasn't shown on the USSc website as denied or any other status, then what is this petition for?

 

[PsyOps]

Kerad is clearly right. Clearly, the response that is due by Dec 1st is a SCOTUS - Pres (elect) "shout out", and that's it.

Kerad is clearly right about what. He keeps referring to a different case.

 

[This_person]

Kerad is clearly right about what. He keeps referring to a different case.

I forgot the thingie

 

[Kerad]

Man we’ve done this already. You’re talking about a different case. Docket No. 08A391 was requesting to halt the election. This was denied.

Docket No. 08-570 is the request for BO to produce the BC.

08-570 "is" the petition for a writ of certiorari.

 

[awpitt]

Man we’ve done this already. You’re talking about a different case. Docket No. 08A391 was requesting to halt the election. This was denied.

Docket No. 08-570 is the request for BO to produce the BC.

It's interesting to note that the attoney for the Respondent (Obama) is Gregory Garre the Solicitor General of the United States, who's job is to conduct all litigation on behalf of the US Govt. in the Supreme Court.

Docket for 08-570

 

[The Oyster Guy]

It's interesting to note that the attoney for the Respondent (Obama) is Gregory Garre the Solicitor General of the United States, who's job is to conduct all litigation on behalf of the US Govt. in the Supreme Court.

Docket for 08-570

Oh-oh, now you've gone and done it... Barnaby Jones, err... I meant PsyOps, his head is gonna explode when he learns that the US Govt is now covering-up for Obama!!!

 

[Kerad]

Oh-oh, now you've gone and done it... Barnaby Jones, err... I meant PsyOps, his head is gonna explode when he learns that the US Govt is now covering-up for Obama!!!

 

[Kerad]

It's interesting to note that the attoney for the Respondent (Obama) is Gregory Garre the Solicitor General of the United States, who's job is to conduct all litigation on behalf of the US Govt. in the Supreme Court.

Docket for 08-570

Garre may be involved due to Berg naming the Federal Election Commission in his original suit, along with Obama and the DNC.