Talk:Philip J. Berg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Offhand, I have to question the notability of this man. He is not the only one who has tried (and failed) to pursue such a lawsuit, and he has no notability outside of it.--RosicrucianTalk 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thirded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.135.132 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed... this has all the hallmarks of a flash-in-the-pan news story to me. I suggest waiting a little while to see if this guy really has any long-term notability, then taking it to WP:AFD. Terraxos (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'm 99% sure that a website calling itself 'Obamacrimes.com' is not a reliable source. I will remove that reference. Terraxos (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That particular website appears to be personally operated by Berg. As such, while it certainly isn't unbiased it's at the very least an accurate representation of his views and claims.--RosicrucianTalk 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fifth it, and I've done a bunch of editing here, primarily because I have a thing about court cases and legal procedure being described accurately. Berg himself is decidedly not noteworthy. He is obviously a poor lawyer and, given the nature of some of his suits, would appear to have a questionable grasp on reality. His Obama lawsuit is patently frivolous, and it has only become noteworthy because it has drawn the attention of numerous individuals on the far-right end of the political spectrum. Most of these individuals, however, do not grasp the frivolity of the lawsuit. Any crackpot can file a lawsuit in federal court and pursue it up to the Supreme Court if the lower court dismisses it. The odds of the Supreme Court granting Berg's petition for certiorari (i.e., deciding that it will review the case) are astronomical; the odds of the Court granting cert and reversing the lower court decision are incalculable. I would err on the side of caution and wait until the Court rules on the petition before deleting the article. However, given the lower court's solid ruling (and the dismissals of other identical lawsuits on the same grounds), there would probably be nothing wrong with deleting it beforehand. Jhw57 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it up to the courts to decide if a lawsuit is frivilous? His suit is still before the Supreme Court, due to be brought before the rest of the court on December 5 (if I'm reading the news reports right). 76.186.182.113 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The federal district court has already determined that Berg's attempt to use certain federal statutes to gain standing to bring the suit was frivolous and has entered a judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing. Berg is seeking to have that dismissal reversed. Unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise -- and if it does say otherwise, it will be overturning decades of well-entrenched precedent on standing -- the judgment of the district court stands intact. The news reports are referring to the conference the Court holds to determine which of the hundreds of petitions for writs of certiorari it receives every month it will grant. Four votes (out of the nine justices) are needed to grant cert. Berg's petition will almost certainly be denied. You won't be able to find a legal scholar who would say otherwise. But until it is denied, the case is technically still alive. Jhw57 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berg's case was not among those granted certiorari on December 5. It was not specifically denied it either, so it could be that some of the justices haven't weighed in yet.--RosicrucianTalk 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, Berg has filed another injunction to attempt to prevent the electoral votes. Methinks if he persists, the court will shoot him down in more definite terms.--RosicrucianTalk 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly question the notability of this man. I personally don't think this man warrants an entire article on Wikipedia.WackoJackO 12:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's at least as much notability as, say, the Runaway bride case. In each case, there was an episode of questionable sanity that reached the national stage and then went away (or at least mostly...). However, I could also see this being merged into the birther article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Berg is notable, but only in the context of his lawsuits. As an individual he is not notable, and I think his ethical problems and suspension from the practice of law (not in the article) really don't have relevance to his notability. Berg's original Berg v. Obama lawsuit converted much of the birth conspiracy theories into the mainstream by elevating them to federal lawsuit. Berg's case was so foundational for birther litigation that it is frequently cited in decisions on other cases. I think that this really belongs as part of the article on Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation and that the Ethics and 9/11 conspiracy stuff is not notable. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Attorney General[edit]

I have removed the false claim that Philip Berg was the Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, as no such position exists. 71.225.69.87 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett would disagree with you on that point.http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/ However, this is a class of employee of the Attorney General's office. Using the title may give the impression that this was an elected office.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuwhirled (talk • contribs) 21:24, August 19, 2010

Main Photo[edit]

There should be a picture of Berg himself, not of Obama's forged long-form birth certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheisu7 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The long form birth certificate is particularly inappropriate since it postdates pretty much anything notable Berg has done. The problem is getting a photo of Berg that is free to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Philip J. Berg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_J._Berg&oldid=1199878376"