What about Amicus Letters to Supreme Court Justices, concerning Berg vs Obama?

Larry, while you can definately write the supreme court justices, It will not be an Amicus brief, which is a volunteering of information on a point of law that the writer for some reason can claim some form of expertise or extra weight.

Now some corrections. To submit an Amicus, one must have NOT been solicited by EITHER side. One must simply prepare the breif and ask the court's permission to submit it. The Court will in almost all cases say yes.

While it is true that Mr Berg had no standing to challenge the selection of Obama as the Democratic Candidate (as a group, the Democrats could pick a dead squirrel from Romania to be their candidate), as someone who will be under the rule of the President, he is definately entitled to file suit now that Obama has been elected.

Someone noted ""he is required to be eligible" somehow translates into "I have the right to challenge his documentation"" That is partly true and partly false. You have to have a dog in the race. By that I mean it has to be relevant to you. A resident of Maine could not sue because the Senator of Nevada was not of legal age. However, a resident of Nevada could sue, as that is HIS senator. In the same way, as Berg was not a part of the DNC, he had no grounds to sue. Now, as Obama will be POTUS, Berg has grounds. What is unclear is if Berg must wait until Obama is sworn in or not before he has grounds.

Someone linked an article to Berg's misconduct. Yes, Berg is a pretty sloppy lawyer, but REAL lawyers are going to be filing these same challenges real soon. But remember, when all is said and done, none of Berg's legal missteps comes close to being a 10th as bad as Bill Clinton's legal missteps. Remember Clinton was disbarred from practicing law in his home state (the only place he was licensed), and faced a $25,000 fine, and was disbarred from practicing federal law as well. Berg got a $10,000 and a 6 hours ethics course. The fact that Berg was a little bit sloppy in a few cases is not good, but it doesn't change the merits of his case. A broken watch is still correct twice a day.

another bit of disinformation that needs to be addressed is "He was born in Hawaii and he IS our President. Glad you can see that."

Blatantly false. George W Bush is our President.

Second, if he was born in Hawaii why all the secrecy? Why not be open about it and reveal all the pertinent documents to the strictist scrutiny? The only reason to NOT do that is if you have something to hide. I suspect that Obama was born in Hawaii, but I suspect he is being less than open because he is trying to hide other facts (maybe that he was once a practicing muslim?)

In closing, we are facing a new chapter in the story that is The United States of America, and yet posters in this very question are still judging people based only on skincolor. It is wrong to judge a man because his skin is dark. That is racism. It is equally wrong to judge a man because his skin is light. Racially negative comments like 'Darkie' 'Doughboy' 'Red' 'Mudman' 'Whitebread' or any other do not belong. We should have been able to move past that.

A "amicus" letter is one that offers the court information that they would otherwise not have, if I understand your intent.

Perhaps you know (better than they do) of some obscure law that allows one private individual to file challenges to the citizenship of someone else? You have somehow stumbled onto proof that the State of Hawaii WAS bought off, and they REALLY don't have a valid record? Since the Court presumably has experience, and is fully aware that ALL Govt employees are actually investigated, even when the public at large does not have access to that private information.. maybe you have evidence that Obama "fell through the cracks".??

Sorry, I don't understand your approach.

Berg already has been sanctioned by the court (on another court) for being such a crappy lawyer that he failed to provide even the most basic understanding of legal process and evidence. His original case was dismissed for NO STANDING.. ie a private citizen does not have the authority to challenge the citizenship or being eligible to run for President, in a court. If anything.. the proper route would have been to file a complaint, assuming that the person had ANY credible evidence to claim anything, thus an investigation would have been evaluated by LEGAL AUTHORITIES with the right to access documents.

Mine isn't a popular view point.. everyone WANTS TO THINK that "he is required to be eligible" somehow translates into "I have the right to challenge his documentation". The two statements are completely different.

Why is their decision to not hear the case incorrect?

edit

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=112202311726...

in case you are wondering about my comments that a Judge has already found Berg to be in violation of legal ethics, as to understanding the process and standards of law.

FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons.

—Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP)

edit

uh.. sorry.. I am NOT responsible for the above Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure... no matter how much you want to patronize someone.

It comes perfectly clear and as no surprise that Republicans in D.C. care no more about middle and lower class despair than prior to the election. They are pumped and primed to play politics and chase every shot-in-the-dark smear as deeply as possible down any dark alley available, diverting the presidential administration from saving the economy and pursuing world peace. All for the furtherance of rich class domination and agenda.

Just as disgusting as ever. We're not going to put up with this cr*p much longer.

Some reason you can't print the letter 9 times with different names on it?

It's pretty easy these days.

And yes I agree with you, these frivilous lawsuits against Obama have to stop!