SCOTUS DECISION OF MONDAY ON OBAMA BC

SCOTUS MONDAY OBAMA DECISION STATUS FROM PHIL BERG'S OFFICE

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 just 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. Anderson is an Electoral Voter from Arizona.

WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!! AND OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY BID MAY BE.

IN FACT:

Here's the LAST paragraph of Anderson's amicus:
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or UnitedStates attorney to act; procedure.

If the Attorney General or United States attorneyrefuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on therequest of a person interested, the interested personmay apply to the court by certified petition for leaveto have the writ issued.

When, in the opinion of thecourt, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliancewith the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as tosecurity for costs.

Obama would be be ordered by the SCOTUS to produce his qualification to the US Attorney General or they would grant Anderson's request for a halt to the inauguration.

AND

Berg's Petition was denied, true. But the case is still open, to be listened to in Conference on Jan. 16.

Obviously, the SCOTUS doesn't like Berg's other writs; SCOTUS denied his first writ to stop the election, and his second to stop the Electoral College vote, probably because of Constitutional standing among other things.

But follow this timeline:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due Dec 1, 2008)

Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.

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.

Looking at ALL of the cases against Obama at SCOTUS
(Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Lightfoot, all of the Berg cases), THIS one is the only case that has the word “GRANTED” in the orders!

NO OTHER Obama case has this little word — Granted. Not accepted, but Granted, by at least 4 Justices.

Furthermore, here's the Amicus Brief filed by Bill Anderson

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf

“The amicus (Bill Anderson) is a citizen of the State of Arizonaand an elector of that state for elector for President of the United States.”

The amicus was filed nearly 6 weeks ago — that's a long time ago in this Obama fiasco, my friends.

And when was it GRANTED? After the amicus had legal standing -- when his Electoral Vote was counted in Congress on Jan. 8.

Furthermore, Arizona, from where the amicus is filing, is unique in its election laws:

Within the job description and state statutes, there's a step that is required after the Secretary of State has certified the candidates and formatted the ballots.

Once this step is complete, the ballot is transmitted to the Attorney General of Arizona, Solicitor General, TO BE CHECKED FOR IT’S LEGALITY.

THIS is the authority that allows and forces a sworn duty to perform the real investigation into the legality of candidates and referendums.

Bill Anderson, being an Elector with his vote now counted by the US Senate, operating under Arizona state law, can compel the Solicitor General to make the required investigation to insure the legality of the candidates and ballot, INCLUDING THE SUBPOENA OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE THROUGH THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT!

This is why the SCOTUS is "kicking it down to the lower court."

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Arizona AG is not already coordinating with the US AG to pull Hawaii BC records at this moment!

The words "The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted" make more sense in this context!

Berg's same docket (#08-570) is being heard again on Friday, if you're losing track of the cases...

It almost explains Cheney’s tersely-scripted remarks after the votes were officially counted on Jan. 8 in the Senate, and that canary-eating feline grin of his as he dissolved the special Senate committee. LOL

What's McCain's home state again? ;)