Posted on 10/10/2008 1:29:21 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
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 from the 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.
(( ping ))
Looks like its moving forward. Hopefully, the DNC cannot postpone this and we’ll at least know if their candidate is a US citizen or not.
Why can't anyone see a darned birth certificate already?
The obvious answer is because it disqualifies him.
AMEN! AMEN!
Lord, please let this blow up in the Obamma camp’s faces wholesale at the worst possible time.
Exactly, what’s he got to hide? This would be NO PROBLEMO if he had a valid birth certificate to produce.
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.
—————snip
Someone needs to tell Obama we do not elect mystery men.
Good news: Berg makes a number of compelling arguments.
Bad news: It is a lengthy document.
Best part; It’s the Democrats doing it to themselves.
When their party disintegrates before their eyes they can only blame themselves.
I only hope that this will put a stake through the heart of the socialist fringe of their party for a few decades. (It’s a foolish hope I know but it is a sincere hope none the less)
I can’t even think of a reason, any reason, why an adult’s birth certificate cannot be viewed. What’s on it? Name, parents’ names, date, location.
Which one of those is the wart?
McCain should make his birth certificate public and challenge Obama to do the same.
Why can't anyone see a darned birth certificate already?
I know, I know....I AM GOING CRAZY over this...what in the hell is going on?
Could the DNC PLAYING with the courts and hoping to embarrass the press ( and thus help Obama in the end game) if this turns out to be FOLLY and Barak is really a natural born citizen of our country ).....
or.....
do we have something VERY NEFARIOUS going on?
“What’s on it? Name, parents’ names, date, location.
Which one of those is the wart?”
Must be the location!
What does it matter where he was born, the guy’s a Democrat! Any facts to the contrary are racist!
Amen! I'm agreeing with you, brother!
His is already public. Remember the case that was brought against him citing the fact he was born in Panama? The judge threw it out because he was born as a US Navy dependent to two US citizens.
OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN.
If Obama actually did have a US Birth Certificate he’d have shown it already. A team of lawyers just costs too much money to use on a defense that could be squashed by simply showing the birth certificate.
It is just simple economics. The only reason to defend is because the document does not prove USA citizenship.
How simple can this be?
WTH? why has he not produced it already when he ran for the senate? i would think this would be a real simple task for our government to verify, if he was born here. this whole thing feels off to me. cant put my finger on it. with all his terrorist related ties, i would think homeland security would be doing the work for berg. again color me confused.
Probably "All of the above "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.