My daughter was born in Vietnam when I served there. She, like McCain, is a natural born US citizen. Her birth certificate was issued by the VN government. Her citizenship certificate, issued by the US Embassy, has the serial number beginning with a double “A”, i.e., “AA”; Her mother is a naturalized citizen and has a citizenship certificate beginning with a single “A”. Not much of a difference, but enough. “AA” status means citizenship the same as if actually born on US soil of US parents. “A” citizenship means you are a citizen but are excluded from ever being President.
The law suit concerning O’Bama’s not having a valid birth certificate. If demanding that Obama produce a birth certificate is grasping at straws as WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND TO SEE PROOF THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUION’s CRITERIA, then WE are LOST, LOST!!!!
Obama refuses in court to produce a birth certificate, instead he plays a legal delaying tactic. It’s pretty obvious that he doesn’t have legal proof he was born in the USA. Some of his relatives say he was born in KENYA.
Berg response in oppostion to Obama / DNC protective order
Thursday, 09 October 2008 21:38 administrator
E-mail Print
Attached is Philip J. Berg’s Opposition to Defendants, the DNC and Obama’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery pending Decision on their Motion to Dismiss. If the Protective Order were granted, discovery could not occur until the standing issue has been resolved and only if it is in favor of the plaintiff.
Following is an excerpt fromthe response:
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BARACK H. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITVE MOTION
Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within Response in Opposition to Defendants, Barack H. Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and the Democratic National Committee [hereinafter “DNC’] Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Defendants Dispositive Motion on the following grounds:
1. Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss does not entitle them to a Protective Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) [hereinafter F.R.C.P. 26(c];
2. Defendants have failed to show “good cause” and are therefore not entitled to a protective order under F.R.C.P. 26(c);
3. Defendants have not pointed to any legitimate privacy concerns. Defendants have failed to point out any substantiated specific examples demonstrating that disclosure will cause a defined and serious injury;
4. Plaintiff does not seek access to the requested information for any improper purpose;
5. Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from the requested documents;
6. The requested information is extremely important for public safety; and “Good Cause” requires a particular need for the protection sought;
7. The sharing of information will promote fairness and efficiency so as not to delay this action;
8. Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The Democratic National Committee is a public entity and is also subject to public scrutiny; and 9. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 is a strong factor in favor of not granting a protective order which would prevent disclosure of such information.