Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/10/2008 1:29:21 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: tuwood; Eva; danamco; austinaero; txflake; Reaganwuzthebest; CaptRon; pissant; Osage Orange; ...

(( ping ))


2 posted on 10/10/2008 1:39:27 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

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.


3 posted on 10/10/2008 1:49:08 AM PDT by InShanghai (I was born on the crest of a wave, and rocked in the cradle of the deep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard
This is basic, BASIC STUFF...

Why can't anyone see a darned birth certificate already?

The obvious answer is because it disqualifies him.

4 posted on 10/10/2008 1:56:51 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 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 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.


7 posted on 10/10/2008 2:14:42 AM PDT by Islander7 (The only thing Obama has to fear is the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard
You can read Berg's response to the Motion to Dismiss HERE.

Good news: Berg makes a number of compelling arguments.

Bad news: It is a lengthy document.

8 posted on 10/10/2008 2:31:12 AM PDT by Zakeet (Crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

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?


10 posted on 10/10/2008 2:48:05 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

McCain should make his birth certificate public and challenge Obama to do the same.


11 posted on 10/10/2008 3:08:23 AM PDT by texgal (end no-fault divorce laws return DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION to ALL citizens))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

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?


17 posted on 10/10/2008 4:20:55 AM PDT by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

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.


18 posted on 10/10/2008 4:38:36 AM PDT by CanadianMusherinMI (Mrs. Musher here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard
Perhaps McCain needs an Ad explaining to the American people that Obama and his lawyers refuse to provide documents proving that he is eligible to be president.
"What are you trying to hide Senator?" could be the repeated mantra as they document the steps he has taken to block production of the proof of his citizenship.

22 posted on 10/10/2008 4:45:33 AM PDT by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

seeing how the court hasnt ruled on the Motion to Dismiss yet, and now another motion has been filed, i am pessimistic that the COLB issues will be resolved prior to November 4.

It would take an extraordinary chain of events for that to happen.


42 posted on 10/10/2008 6:51:26 AM PDT by Canedawg (If the law supposes that, said Mr. Bumble, the law is a ass, a idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

Could it be this is a distraction? It puts the question of eligibility out there, and no matter what the court decides, it won’t matter because the COLB is in someone’s hands.


43 posted on 10/10/2008 6:54:27 AM PDT by Heart of Georgia (McCain (Doggone it)/Palin (You betcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lancey Howard

He’s already told us he’s a citizen of the world. To me, that’s enough proof of divided loyalties.


53 posted on 10/10/2008 8:42:05 AM PDT by ducdriver (Quantum potes tantum aude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson