Philip J Berg, Berg vs Obama, February 2, 2009, Case referred to a Merits Panel, Internal Operating Procedures of the US 3rd Circuit Appeals Court, Federal Election Committee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, therightsideoflife.com
On February 2, 2009, Attorney Philip J. Berg’s case Berg v. Obama,
in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, was referred to a Merits Panel.
Thanks to the The Right Side of Life website for the heads up.
“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)”
“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]”
“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.
Read more here:
Attorney Matthew DePerno: Four Shocking Discoveries from the Dominion Machines Audit in Antrim County Michigan Including Ties with China
Attorney Matthew DePerno: Four Shocking Discoveries from the Dominion Machines Audit in Antrim County Michigan IncludingRead More
Wisconsin 2020 election investigation approved by Assembly, WI legislature Jan 4 Resolution and Supreme Court declared illegal
Wisconsin 2020 election investigation approved by Assembly, WI legislature Jan 4 Resolution and Supreme CourtRead More