[Sibre Fan]

You can't deny one side access to all possible admissible evidence and pretend you have a system of justice.

You can't grant one side "discovery" to go on a fishing expedition to support their ever expanding claims against their enemy and pretend that you have a system of justice.

In order to state a claim, you have to have SOME credible evidence to support it first. You don't have to be able to PROVE your claim -- that's what discovery and trial is for -- but you have to have SOME evidence to support it.

To date, she's failed to provide credible evidence to support her claims (and, on some claims, there is publicly available, credible evidence that disproves her claims).

[El Gato]

You can't grant one side "discovery" to go on a fishing expedition to support their ever expanding claims against their enemy and pretend that you have a system of justice.

So "discovery" once granted, can't at the same time be limited to "relevant" documents? I think I saw in one of the rules that it can be. Does not the court have to approve every supoena?

[Red Steel]

Here’s an angle to try. Show the court that Obama lied to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which can be proven. He lied to them when he said he had no aliases. Goes to Obama’s credibility. If he lied before to a court he can do it again. The object here is to get a judge to motion for discovery.