[Sibre Fan]

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 subpoena?

Discovery can be limited to that which is relevant or likely to lead to relevant evidence.

However - before discovery of any sort is granted, you must "allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is 'plausible on its face.'" Read pp 7-9 of the opinion.

Citing to a list of SS# for people whose name sounds like Obama's to allege fraud is not "plausible" evidence. (You'd need SOME indication that THIS Obama actually used THOSE SS#.)
Citing to an AOL survey of what people believe is not "plausible evidence."
Citing to an alleged US ban on travel to Pakistan is not "plausible evidence" (especially when evidence proves that claim to be false).
If you go through her Rhodes complaint, she really cites no "plausible" evidence to support her claims.

You have to be able to cite to SOME plausible evidence to support your claims other than "I don't like him; I don't trust him, so he must be lying."

[El Gato]

"allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is 'plausible on its face.'" Read pp 7-9 of the opinion.

Sounds like a judgment call to me. That's what they pay judges for.

But such facts *were* alleged, an apparant Kenyan Birth Certificate, a piece of paper with signature and seal, and the best they could do with an affidavit about it's origins.

I would have left out all that other cr, er stuff, as well. It wasn't germane to the main issue, eligibility to the office of President.

Ms Taitz could tone it down a notch or too, at least this early in the process, and with no jury involved. Later...well they let Edwards channel dead babies in court, so I guess a little hyperbole and emotionalism when going before the jury would be OK.