[[ Although the Federal Circuit Court judge, R. Barclay Surrick, has yet to rule on Berg's claim, federal rules of procedure would appear to support his contention, since they specify that any objection or refutation had to be served within thirty days. The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order, but there has yet to be a ruling on this, perhaps to the surprise and chagrin of Obama and the DNC. Obama's lawyers in these motions, argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” The source of that embarrassment was not specified.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2018399:BlogPost:10858 ]] At Berg’s website you can view the requested ‘protective order‘. You are being spun a Gordian knot of dissembling goo by someone posing as 'curious' ... Barry Soetoro stated he had a copy of his 'actual' birth certificate, found amongst his 'Granny's saved papers from his childhood. Of course, the claim by the affirmative action fraud fresh prince of Bill Ayers was made in one of his 'autobiographies', so even that is suspect.
I must admit that am having trouble establishing that team Obama stated that they wished to avoid embarrassment.
“particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”
I have been lurking about on the Eligibility threads for a long time (long enough to appreciate your many decent contributions in this, MHGinTN), and I remain convinced that Obama should turn over a vault copy BC or be forced to. For once, I’ve decided to take a little time to try to contribute to the discussion, but I apologize in advance for the likely scenario in which I am here repeating what someone else has already clarified.
I'm particularly interested in recent requests from people on these threads for the evidence that Obama/DNC actually asked for dismissal or protection explicitly to prevent “embarrassment”. Ever since I read months ago that the “embarrassment” reason had been cited by the defense, I have made that a part of my “talking points” in conversations about why Obama should hand over his Birth Certificate and other documentation. I would typically ask, “Hmm, now what big embarrassing thing on his Birth Certificate could they possibly need to keep hidden?” So when people started saying on these boards, “Show me where the defense stated they sought to avoid ‘embarrassment’”, I thought that I would take some time and hunt that down. I felt sure I could remember reading it right off of one of the pdf legal document copies of various filings, motions, briefs, etc. I pulled the motions for dismissal and for protection from discovery filed on behalf of Obama/DNC and the one occurrence of the word ‘embarrassment’ that I could find was in the defense's motion for protection. It was a rather generic quotation of a rule stating criteria that could justify an order for protection from discovery. Here is the segment on page 6 of the
motion for protectionRule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery.(emphasis mine)
While the rule cited does indeed mention ‘embarrassment’ specifically, it is mentioned as only one of five legal conditions for granting protection. As far as I can tell, the idea of avoiding embarrassment for Obama/DNC is never specifically raised in the document as a reason for the protection sought. In short, the defense never seems to come right out and say something to the effect of “we’re trying to avoid any embarrassment that could result from the release of these documents.” Yes, embarrassment is mentioned, but from now on I must admit that as far as I can tell, the defense did not explicitly claim a concern about embarrassment.
That point is ironically underscored on page 16 of 22 of Berg’s own
Response in Opposition to the Motion for Protection where he himself says:
“Defendants do not allege that disclosure of the requested information will cause any embarrassment.”
So why have I been so convinced until now that team Obama specifically argued that they didn’t want the embarrassment that would result from discovery? Maybe it really was in a legitimate document I can no longer find (
please, please someone help me out if this is the case), or maybe I unwisely took something said by Berg or one of his advocates at face value.
I did happen to notice that the phrase quoted in the
IsraelInsider story is almost exactly the same as a phrase used by team Berg on page 7 of
his Response Opposing Protection. Here are those words in that context:
“5. Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from the requested documents;”. While his point here seems quite correct to me, I simply can’t find where or if counsel for Obama/DNC ever actually claimed that embarrassment would result.
Now that I’ve bothered to open my mouth in the eligibility controversy on these boards, I’m having trouble resisting my temptation to take a few moments of venting:
<VENTING ON>I think that overstatment, deceptive rhetoric, presumptuous extrapolations, and sensationalistic headlines coming from within the movement are hurting our chances at being taken seriously. Perhaps we are damaged as much by ourselves as by the imbeciles in the mainstream who keep parroting the blatantly false assertion that “Officials in Hawaii have already verified that he was born in Honolulu.” Etc.
As grateful as I sincerely am for the tireless efforts of Taitz and Berg to keep pushing this issue, I agonize over the moments where we were told that “Justice Thomas took an extreme unprecedented step to distribute for conference a case that had been rejected by a fellow justice!” or that “John Roberts has sent a crucial message to Congress today by distributing…” or that “We win!--Obama admits that he was not born in Hawaii, since he has ignored the legal requirement to file a claim to the contrary.” Or that “Congressman So-and-so will take the floor tomorrow to oppose the electoral vote count” or that “the unknown senator was intentionally overlooked when he waved his hand to signal dissent” Etc., etc.
I realize that it is an impossible violation of the laws of science and nature for lawyers (even ones on the good-guy side) to present information without twisting it by means of various rhetorical devises in order to make it seem to give greater support to his or her side of an argument, but please can’t we exercise a little restraint here. I think we desperately need to stay on focus with the points of our argument that are much less disputable. Wouldn’t that help us in the long run? I’ve been debating when or how or if I should write the editor or send an email to the local news talk program or find some way to do my part to encourage media involvement with this issue, but I dare not send them to Dr. Orly or to Berg or to the threads here. Maybe I could refer them to Gary Kreep or Stephen Pidgeon or to the Indiana case, but Keyes, as right as he seems to be on this, would be perceived as having too much baggage, and even Donofrio clouded his rapport thanks to his “Artsy” meanderings. We're on the right side of this argument and as such, should be doing better than this.</VENTING OFF>
Thanks.
If I am error on this (extremely possible), I would be grateful for any time anyone would take to correct me.