Leaping to conclusions, are we??? Ever heard of "discovery"???
Obama has never been troubled by a wrong he has done, and is not about to start now.
Another fact, thank you. May we quote you???
“Leaping to conclusions, are we??? Ever heard of “discovery”???”
You don’t do discovery to get the facts to file the lawsuit. You have the facts first, then you file the lawsuit. Then you do discovery to get additional proof and documents to back up your claim. But your original claim has to be based on facts, not suspicions.
parsy, who says you are putting your carts before your horses
You appear to be very confused about exactly what "discovery" is. In layman's terms, it's a permission granted by the court to further pursue documents and testimony in a case the court has judged to have merit. But even if a case is allowed to proceed, the plaintiff has to show a basis in fact that any document or testimony should be "discovered."
So far, Taitz hasn't presented any facts. This latest nonsense includes a list of entries on a publicly available database that bear the name "Barack Hussein Obama." This list has been shoveled into every Taitz (and some other) court filings since February, so it's hardly new.
Instead of contracting with private investigators to verify or discredit these names/addresses and come up with some specific facts -- a duty which is the PLAINTIFF'S responsibility, not the Court's or the defendant -- she's done nothing but make dramatic, and slanderous accusations that these unsourced and uninvestigated entries constitute "fraudulent manipulation of his own identity, and the legal identity of others" and "appears to have committed a substantial number of felony violations."
She asserts that the affidavits of two PI's -- Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels -- "show beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of manipulation of Barack Hussein Obama’s identity, employment, and residence information," when the affidavits merely state that these are the numbers the PI's have found in some unnamed database(s)/source(s), and nothing else.
She made a similar misrepresentation to Judge Carter in the Oct. 5 hearing about document expert Sandra Limes saying in her affidavit that the online COLB "was forged." Limes said no such thing. What Limes did say is that "any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document." Too bad Orly doesn't apply that statement to the first fake Kenya BC that she submitted to the Court, which has been proven to be a forgery, but which she still insists, with no authentication, to be genuine.
No judge in his right mind would grant discovery based on such insane and unsourced allegations. And if the dark day comes that a judge does grant discovery based on this type of garbage, we will all have lost, big time, because the ramifications for each and every one of us would be horrifying.