Berg says that McCain produced his medical records. McCain let journalists look at his 1,000 page file for 3 hours. That is not being open about your medical records.

Obama's birth certificate has been pronounced genuine by FactCheck.org. At that site they show the genuine certificate, along with the number that some found suspiciously blanked out.

The most telling fact is that the local paper, the Honolulu advertiser from August 13, 1961 has a birth announcement of a son born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H Obama. So either someone went back and printed a phony newspaper and slipped it into the records, or there has been a conspiracy for a LOOOOONG time.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Fact Check is run by the Annanberg Foundation who Obama used to work for. If that is the best verification he can come up with, he's in trouble!

The alleged birth certificate on his website and the Fact Check website is a photoshop forgery that was put together by Jay McKinnon, a document specialist at, get this, the Department of Homeland Security!

4. The applicable Law at the time of Obama's birth

December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986

If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.

If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.

If the dude was as smart as he purports to be, he'd produce the vault copy birth certificate and this would disappear.

Anyone can call in and announce a birth and people routinely do it for babies born out of country to make the birth known to friends. It proves nothing, except that Obama's mom was claiming to be married to his Kenyan father.

His birth announcement by his grandparents proves nothing. Notice how he's keeping his white grandmother hidden. Won't even reveal the home she's in in Hawaii.

.7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States" (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)). b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth. c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President -- The Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 1

#808080">i guess were gonna have to re-elect.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SRES 511 RSATS

Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

April 30, 2008

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS2d SessionS. RES. 511RESOLUTIONRecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.April 24, 2008Reported without amendmentStates.

Indonesian citizenship further mucks things up.

When you look at the ASCII source code it reveals Photoshop identifiers.

When you look at the ASCII source code it reveals Photoshop identifiers.

Applicable law for recovering U.S. citizenship once it has been given up

Did Obama's mother register him in Vancouver on her way back to the States?

I'm putting this stuff here for when this case breaks open soon.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'd rather be in front of the news than behind it.

This is why you need to check everything on the internet. It's signed by Dudley Doright and John Kennedy!

From the Hawaiian DHHL

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Is a child born outside the US to American parents legally eligible to become President?

Most likely yes.

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment), other legal experts believe the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside the US proper:

* Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate, was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 (Arizona did not become the 48th state until 1912). Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson.

* George Romney, a 1968 Republican hopeful, was born in Mexico in 1907 to American parents who had moved there to escape anti-Mormon persecution in the US. (Contrary to a widely held popular misconception, by the way, Romney's parents were settlers in Mexico, not missionaries.) Romney's campaign fizzled following a gaffe about his having been "brainwashed" by the military establishment into supporting US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

* John McCain, an early Republican hopeful in the current (2000) campaign, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents. McCain dropped out of the campaign in favor of the Republicans' eventual nominee, George W. Bush.

Some questions were raised at the time regarding both Goldwater and Romney's eligibility for the nation's highest office, but no formal legal challenge was mounted in either case.

We will probably never really know whether an American citizen born outside the US can become President (or Vice-President) until a lawsuit involving such a candidate finds its way into the courts. This could happen, of course, if a foreign-born candidate were elected and the electoral college's choice were challenged in court; or, more likely, if such a candidate's right to federal campaign subsidies (matching funds) were questioned.

McCain questionable also.

That resolution I posted above is a NON_BINDING Resolution and has no more legal effect than a birthday card.

McCain was born in Colon, Panama which was outside the Canal Zone. He is also refusing to release his original birth certficate, although it is rumored to be the one at the bottom.

This thing is headed for the Supreme Court either way!

McCain was born in el Hospital Colón, Ciudad de Colón, República de Panamá.

I'm storing this stuff online as an easy reference when the story breaks. There is a lot of information that is being hidden on both sides, so please bear with this.

Anyone can call in and announce a birth and people routinely do it for babies born out of country to make the birth known to friends. It proves nothing, except that Obama's mom was claiming to be married to his Kenyan father.

Let's say that Obama was born in Africa. So the parents call from Africa to Hawaii, and then the grandparents in Hawaii call the local paper and give the news, along with a fake local address? Why wouldn't they say that the baby was born in Africa? Were they covering up so that the baby could run for president?

The birth certificate on the factcheck site looks real enough. I think this is a non-story.

Also, the posted video makes me suspicious because they make a big deal of the "Obama is a Muslim" non-story. If he was a Muslim, why should that matter? It only would matter to McCain pinheads who think all Muslims carry bombs in their turbans. It reminds me of the redneck lady at the McCain rally that said Obama was an Arab. WTF? As if being an Arab was a crime.

If someone claims their religion to be something, who am I to say it is something else? It is their religion after all. If Obama says he is a Christian, fine. If he says he is a Muslim, fine. If he wants to make up a new religion, fine. The school in Indonesia was a Catholic school that taught Islam. Is anyone claiming that Obama was Catholic?

If Obama presented a birth certificate that has been accepted by the state officials whose job it is to check such records, then the burden of proof should shift to the people challenging the birth records. I don't see that the burden has been met. It seems like a lot of internet rumor-mongering.

Phil Berg is not the person in charge of birth records who needs to be convinced of Obama's citizenship. I don't know if Mr. Berg has standing to challenge Obama's citizenship. He can't show any particular harm. It's very simple to say, "All Obama needs to do is show his birth certificate to the judge." But Obama's lawyer will say, "Obama has already proven his citizenship, and you don't have any right to challenge it." Does Obama owe a duty to go door to door and show everyone his birth certificate?

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Anyone who lawyers up when asked to present a verifiable copy of his birth certificate is hiding something. And you are dead wrong if you think this isn't going to get some serious legs. Either way, no matter who wins, the issue of "Natural born citizen" is headed for the Supreme Court.

I wasn't aware that McCain is also refusing to provide a valid birth certificate of record of birth. I Assumed he had. Now the game can be played both ways.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I think they are both zionist stooges. The best news I've heard is what Jesse Jackson said to the New York Post.

I'm just trying to gather the information before the feces hits the rotary cooling propellers.

If Obama is going to be a punk for israel, then he can take a flying fork at the moon.

I don't know if it can be said that Obama has "lawyered up", or that he has not produced a real birth certificate. Phil Berg has no right to question Obama's birth certificate. If this suit were being brought by a state official whose job it was to check such things, then Obama had better produce the certificate to the court. But Phil Berg, or Phil Spector, or Alan Dershowitz, or a homeless guy on the street has to prove that he has standing to challenge was has already been legally accepted. That means showing harm. A regular citizen has to show that he was harmed in some particular fashion. (In addition, he must show causation and redressability, but I don't see those as major obstacles once harm is shown.)

The issue of standing is used by courts to ignore some cases, as in the case of a citizen challenging some wasteful expenditure, citing harm as a taxpayer. But if the court really wants to hear the case, they will often ignore the issue of standing. For example, in the Supreme Court case of Bush v Gore, George Bush didn't have standing to challenge the Florida Supreme Court case, or to have brought a case in Florida in the first place. Bush had not suffered any harm, since he was not registered to vote in Florida. If the election was decided for Gore, then it was Gore's election, and no harm to Bush.

I was curious to see how Obama's lawyers were responding to Berg's claim, and I think they must be geniuses because they agree with me. The Obama motion to dismiss says that Berg lacks standing because he "fails to show any concrete, specific injury in fact to himself. 'A voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm is abstract and widely shared or is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.'"

The Obama motion goes on to cite Jones v Bush, where a citizen challenged the Bush Cheney ticket on the grounds that both of them were from the same state of Texas, in violation of the 12th Amendment. The 5th circuit dismissed on grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing.

The Obama motion notes that Hollander v McCain (2008) dismissed the birth certificate challenge on the same grounds.

Another reason given for dismissing the case is that Berg's suit, which seeks only a declaratory judgment, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) in Federal Courts is not automatic. The statute upon which this suit is brought, 28 USC 2201 is said to enlarge the range of remedies available in federal courts, but does not create SMJ. (Citing Mack Trucks v Int'l Union UAW))

Another note that I might make here regarding "lawyering up", or in answer to the question, "Why doesn't he just produce the document?" In a word, discovery. A nuisance lawsuit can really become a nuisance when it reaches the discovery stage. The federal rules of discovery are very liberal: any thing relevant or likely to lead to relevant evidence. Discovery can lead to fishing expeditions, and in the case of a politician, going through all of your past garbage in search of skeletons.

Although people will make you sound like you are trying to hide something, it is always better to "lawyer up". Don't talk to cops. Don't talk to DAs. Don't turn things over to opposing lawyers unless they have right of discovery. Why? Because they are out to get you any way they can.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

i didn't know u were a lawyer!

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

but I have a JD and have passed the bar.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API.

Obama's birth stirs legal action in Washington

The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, also known as the Hatch Amendment

Detailed analysis of fake Hawaiian COB

Dual citizenship laws

Is it true??? 

Was he really adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and does Indonesia not allow for dual citizenship?

It seems pretty ridiculous that Obama's mother, who remains American, to renounce her son's American citizenship on account of her son's stepfather...she would have to be pretty stupid.

If so, is it even legal for Obama's custodians to denounce his American citizenship?

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

and ridiculous. One would have to legally, renounce an American citizenship to relinquish its effectivity. It doesn't merely disappear simply because one leaves the country. Moreover, in the US one is able to be a citizen of another country simultaneously as many Israeli citizens are. Dual citizens can even serve in the armies of the other nation and still remain American citizens. This latest twist in the misinformation campaign on Obama is at best silly.

_____________

"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, most of mankind are Nazis" --Isaac Bashevis 

Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Berg: "Obama & DNC Admit all Allegations"

According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with a request for admissions. Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed on October 6 in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response be filed within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not. Therefore, this morning, Philip Berg will file two motions:

* A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted, and

* A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is "damning," and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James' talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today's filings and the ramifications the defendants' failure to respond may have.

“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”

Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.

Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:

The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.

Just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?

* Admit you were born in Kenya.
* Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
* Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
* Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
* Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
* Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
* Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
* Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
* Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
* Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
* Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
* Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

A request to admit is a simple, cheap, efficient means of discovery. It is so basic that sometimes it gets overlooked. Some Attorneys, because they don’t use them, forget about the thirty day response requirement. When you hit them with their screw up, they invariably get the client to settle the case to hide their embarrassment at their malpractice.

In addition, the beauty is that failure to answer requests for admission is virtually bullet-proof. That is courts almost never permit additional time to answer the admissions.

Berg will file a motion to have the court order that the requests for admission be deemed admitted for purposes of the litigation.

I'm not positive how the days are counted but if weekends and federal holidays are excluded, then thursday is due day. That could be why Obama is in Hawaii.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/obama_grandmother

http://contrariancommentary.wordpress.com/

Rule 6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

(a) Computing Time.

The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules or in any local rule, court order, or statute:

(1) Day of the Event Excluded.

Exclude the day of the act, event, or default that begins the period.

(2) Exclusions from Brief Periods.

Exclude intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when the period is less than 11 days.

(3) Last Day.

Include the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or— if the act to be done is filing a paper in court— a day on which weather or other conditions make the clerk’s office inaccessible. When the last day is excluded, the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or day when the clerk’s office is inaccessible.

(4) “Legal Holiday” Defined.

As used in these rules, “legal holiday” means:

(A) the day set aside by statute for observing New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day; and

(B) any other day declared a holiday by the President, Congress, or the state where the district court is located.

(b) Extending Time.

(1) In General.

When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:

(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

(2) Exceptions.

A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b), except as those rules allow.

(c) Motions, Notices of Hearing, and Affidavits.

(1) In General.

A written motion and notice of the hearing must be served at least 5 days before the time specified for the hearing, with the following exceptions:

(A) when the motion may be heard ex parte;

(B) when these rules set a different time; or

(C) when a court order — which a party may, for good cause, apply for ex parte — sets a different time.

(2) Supporting Affidavit.

Any affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the motion. Except as Rule 59(c) provides otherwise, any opposing affidavit must be served at least 1
day before the hearing, unless the court permits service at another time.

(d) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service.

When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the
period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).

Rule 36. Requests for Admission
(a) Scope and Procedure.

(1) Scope.

A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:

(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and

(B) the genuineness of any described documents.

(2) Form; Copy of a Document.

Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.

(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding.

A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

(4) Answer.

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

(5) Objections.

The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.

(6) Motion Regarding the Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection.

The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may defer its final decision until a pretrial conference or a specified time before trial. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of expenses.
(b) Effect of an Admission; Withdrawing or Amending It.

A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other

Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations

usually parties will cooperate by not filing Discovery requests until motions have been heard. Obama filed a motion to dismiss 12(b)1 and 6.

While it is true that late responses to an RFA are deemed admitted, the judge can, with good cause, allow a party to amend an answer file a late response to an RFA. That is, if the judge does not dismiss the case, which I bet he will.

I think Phil Berg is making hay while the sun shines. He can go on radio shows and say that Obama "admitted" the allegations, (even when Obama's complaint denies them), because the RFAs were not answered. But when the case is dismissed, Berg won't go on the radio show and say that Obama denied them.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

requesting to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss has been decided.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce...

Rule 26(c)1 Protective Orders
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending — or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;

(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;
...
(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;

The brief in support of the request for protective order states that Obama's motion to dismiss is based solely on issues of law, so there is no need for discovery for the court to rule on that motion.

As I stated above, Berg's lawsuit is quickly shaping up to be a fishing expedition. The Obama brief states that Berg has requested 17 categories of documents, including copies of: all of Obama's law school and college applications; all of his law school papers; all of his requests for financial aid. Berg served 56 RFAs on Obama. He served and 27 on the DNC, of 5 catagories of documents, including all documents in DNC possession relating to Obama.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

and a spike the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and other such mind altering drugs both illicit and prescirbed if Obama wins the elections? I predict that gun stores will have their best day of business ob November 5, 2008. Many people will walk around with that blank stare we all experienced in the aftermath of 9/11. God help us all!

Let's just hope Sarah Palin's boobs can convince enough wholeshome Americans to make a difference and prevent this travesty. Amen!

Free lifetime supply of white sheets to the first 100 people who can say Obama's full name backwards 20 times in a row without taking a breath.

Hallelujah brothers! Let the cross burn and shine its holy light on the path of our humble ways. hear hear!

 (from wiki)

 The Quranic Version of the episode is similar in most respects, except that the golden calf is constructed by a man named Samiri, rather than Aaron. Samiri claims that Moses has disappeared, and the Israelites have to find a new god. To this end, Samiri makes a golden calf from the gold jewelry brought out of Egypt.

Aaron, who is acting as leader in Moses' absence, attempts to prevent them from worshipping the statue, but is unsuccessful. When Moses does return, he is initially infuriated at the pagan ritual and Aaron's inability to stop it. Moses then exiles Samiri and orders the golden calf burnt and its ashes cast into the sea.

C.Marlowe: I agree that this is a fishing expedition by Berg and whoever has put him up to this. He was a 911 attorney for Willie Rodreguez in cases which were dropped.

Obama should just produce the BC and shoo Berg away. I can't see where this is doing his campaign any good. Some of those websites have over 30 million hits.

Like I said, I'm just compiling documents for all to see here in the event that this breaks out.

http://www.public-action.com/911/suit.html

Mrs. Ellen Mariani, a 911 widow, has filed a RICO suit against George W. Bush et al. to discover the truth about 911. But her lawyer, Philip J. Berg, has written a complaint that protects the real culprits. It is littered with gross errors and malpractice. Berg is a suicide bus driver taking Ellen Mariani's quest for truth on a one-way trip to oblivion. Mar 3 2004 ...

An Online Symposium on Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship

Looks like the right wing MSM is starting to break this story now that Obama is in Hawaii giving Grandma the pillow treatment.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-real-father-connecting-...

http://www.astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/10/naughty-obama-mamma.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-true-parentage-is-barac...

I blew this last one off last month as a whackjob posting. Now I'm not so sure.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-in...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/15/will-msm-invest...

neo-con rats nest...

thanks for making your perspective perfectly clear for all claymore

you are all too transparent

Sparky:
I thought you'd enjoy this since you and Mr.Sinclair have so much in common.
ENJOY!

Here's is another perspective on the whole Frank Davis / Obama / Larrry Sinclair connection.

Sparky:

This should help with your "fanboyism"

Thanks for that great word Sullivan - it fits Sparky like a glove!

It worked .....  it worked!!

Enjoying all the peacefulness here .... it doesn't feel like Obomba election HQ or Dkos disinfo central  anymore. 

So, many thanks Clay!

There's more where those came from. I'm just gettin' warmed up!

Good to see you back - your graphics are so unique, they give you away.

Some more satires perhaps? Hell, you can't hardly write anything as wierd as this stuff!

I thought we had a minimum level of BS detection. That "African Press International" story didn't smell right, so I did just a tiny bit of research and found:

Even conservative columnist (Nation Review) Byron York wrote a short piece about that story lacking credibility.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWM2MDA2NzZkNzdjNWMzZGFlOGJiZGU...

Even if you are bound to believe every bad thing about Obama, perhaps a teensy bit of logic will dissuade you.

[T]here were obvious signs that the interview, and the organization, is fakety-fake McFake. For example: there are two "r's" in "Farrakhan." "Inauguration" is not spelled "innoguration." And you'd think that a writer for "African Press International" would be clear on the concept of capitalizing one's own publication's name. Nevertheless, these obvious signs proved too elusive for some people, hence Byron York's involvement.

http://tinyurl.com/54ny3h

Another summary of why it should be obvious that the API is a phony right wing front:

So we have allegations being made by “news agency” on a blogsite, owned by a “Foundation” that claims to have been in operation since 1995, but whose website was only set up last week - a foundation WITHOUT ANY PROJECTS except a website that smears Obama, and apparently appropriating the name of a real children’s charity. In short, an obvious fraud run by lying, anti-Obama scumbags.

http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-176402.htm

And of course, the question should be: "If you've got audio of the Michelle Obama phone call, why don't you release it?"

What makes it fun is guessing about how far they can keep their fraud going. Initially they announced that they had a voice recording of Ms. Obama’s call. They were not releasing it because they had obtained it without informing her. Now they’ve revealed that they CAN release it, but will hold on to it just a little while longer while they decide how and to whom it should be released. This they intend to determine by asking their readers for suggestions.

And guess which network is the favourite nominee among the terrifyingly large number of people too stupid to recognize this for a transparent fraud?

You got it. Fox News, the favourite network of morons on EVERY continent.

http://www.stageleft.info/2008/10/19/update-on-african-press-international/

-------------------

Newsbusters? I can't believe someone at WUFYS is citing Newsbusters! I always figured that WUFYS readers were hip to the truth; yet anyone with half a brain should realized that Newsbusters appeals to drooling Faux News pin heads. The first clue should have been watching Jody Miller smirk while delivering that "comedy" news.

Don't get me wrong. Even Fox can be right once in a while, like the proverbial broken watch. (For example, the israeli spy ring story, detailing the sh*tty country's involvement in 911, later withdrawn, was the best MSM piece ever done on 911.) But certain media outlets are famously wrong, and should be viewed with a healthy skepticism.

We all have to be sharp-witted when gathering information and deciding who is credible. I think it is always a mistake to let our personal feelings on a subject overwhelm our better judgment. The result being that we end up using the WUFYS site to publish things that are obviously false.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

I'm just puttin' this stuff in a big file here in case this breaks. That API story sounds hokey to me and as far as Berg's case goes, all I really see is a bunch of unanswered filings with no rulings.

nice research Marlowe

Sparky:

More good news for your messiah

They firmly believe in changes that Obama ( as instructed by   Zio-masters)  talks about all the time and they literally took his advice & did it all the way ... by hacking off their ...... yap.

Obama is so damn popular among 'em! I am wondering which one will end up  working as Barney Frank's intern or Sec of Defense when Obama will become dictator err president of this great land?

 CHANGE for sure.

Another treat for the file of Sparky and the boys.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawy...

It's not like the Constitution is followed anyway on major shit, this is just a minor thing in comparison to stuff like the war in my opinion. I don't want McCain to be president & that's what's going to happen if Obama's disqualified. Also I think people should look at this Phil Berg guy & the fact that he's behind the lawsuit. He's Jewish & was accused of purposefuly sabotaging those 9/11 lawsuits by Ellen Mariani. He's also a member of the NAACP I've discovered, a Jewish run organization which poses as one defending the rights of black people but has been accused by some informed people such as Prof. Tony Martin as being a fraudulent effort to subvert the black rights movement on the part of Jewry. So I don't trust that his intentions are good for this suit, I think that his motivations were the same for what they likely were on the 9/11 lawsuits & the NAACP, to benefit the interests of Zionist Jews. The most hardline Zionists, who call themselves the real Jews, don't want Obama to become president.

Obama Birth Certificate case appealed to Supreme Court.

Hawaii Governor,a Republican and a Sarah Palin supporter, SEALS Obama BC from press.

Neither Frank Davis, nor Obama Sr. can explain those ears!

My research into this case leaves no doubt that zionist interests are behind the Berg lawsuit. The initial expose about the fraudulent Certificate of live birth came out of ziostan.

It's entirely possible that Obama is adverse to the zionist cause. His kowtowing in Jerusalem and AIPAC boot licking may have been practical political theater.

All that is really irrelevant to the basic question here.

ARE John McCain and / or Barack Obama Constitutionally qualified for the office of President?

I appreciate your comments in this section and have a question regarding the concept of "Standing before the Court". Who has standing and what is required to have standing?

Why would Berg, a licensed Attorney and Officer of the Court not have the right to ask the Court a question regarding a candidates Constitutional qualifications for President?

Would an elected official at the State or Federal level have standing?

Would a Military officer have standing?

dont hurt yourself playdough

To answer your questions:

Who has standing and what is required to have standing?

Standing is shown by proving: 1)an injury; 2) that that injury was caused by the conduct of the defendant, and 3) that the injury is redressable by an action of the court.

Anyone proving these three elements will probably have standing.

Let's say I want an injunction to stop someone from cutting down some trees. If they are just trees in a field, then I won't be able to show an injury. If they are in my field, viola, I am injured.

Causation: I have to show that the defendant is cutting down the trees.

Rederessability: The trees would have to be in the same state as the court granting the injunction. If it is in another state, the injunction won't have any power.

Why would Berg, a licensed Attorney and Officer of the Court not have the right to ask the Court a question regarding a candidates Constitutional qualifications for President?

That would be a nice way to frame Berg's argument for standing, but it would fall short of showing a real injury. I think it would be a stretch to show that all attorneys are vested with the responsibility of insuring that candidates for office are responsible for meeting the qualifications.

Would an elected official at the State or Federal level have standing?

Yes, I believe so. An official whose job is to put the names on the ballots would have a vested interest in making sure that the candidates meet the qualifications. Attorney General, (State or Federal), Secretary of State (State not federal), and the Hawaiian official in charge of documents all are charged with those responsibilities.

I think it would be easy to show a harm: that the election is illegal because an constitutionally unqualified candidate is on the ballot. The elected official has been charged with making sure the elections are legal.

Causation might be a problem because the Secretary of State, for example, could simply remove the offensive name from the ballot. (Then the candidate would be put into the position of proving he is worthy.) So the secretary of state wouldn't really need the court. Perhaps if there was some other agency that refused to follow the Secretary's orders. Or say the Attorney General objected and the Secretary refused to act. Then I suppose the court could step in with an injunction.

Courts, under separation of powers, are supposed to let the branches of government act. In Bush v Gore, the court should not have acted because there was a political resolution to any hanky-panky in Florida. The congress could have rejected Florida's electoral votes. I mention this because the courts might not allow standing to a government official if there is a political resolution.

Would a Military officer have standing?

I think there would be a problem showing harm. You could frame it as: the officer is concerned that someone constitutionally unqualified would be commander in chief during a time of war; and that the officer has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. But I think that's a stretch.

If you can convince a judge with a clever argument, then you can make a living as an attorney. Of course, a lower court that granted standing on a shaky basis would likely be reversed. Especially if the court was eliminating one of the candidates from the ballot for election of POTUS. The judge would be making himself look like a crank.

Generally, I think the only people who have standing are the ones empowered to set up the elections because they are the only ones who can assert a harm. I know that anyone could claim a harm: That guy is not constitutionally qualified. But the courts would say that is too attenuated.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Thanks for the great explanation.

It looks to me as if the only one able to ask for qualifications is the Secretaries of State, or the FEC in the case of McCain who took Federal campaign funds.

It looks to me as though Berg's suit is still going nowhere because of standing. I understand he can't bring anything or anyone new into the Appeal?

It looks to me as though Berg's suit is still going nowhere because of standing. I understand he can't bring anything or anyone new into the Appeal?

If Berg appealed the lower court's ruling that he did not have standing, he couldn't add new party because that would be changing the facts on which the lower court ruled. That would essentially a new case, and you can't bring a new case to an appeals court. You have to start at the district court.

I don't suppose Berg knew anyone with standing or he would have joined him in the first place. If someone did turn up in the eleventh hour, I suppose Berg would have to start afresh and file a new suit with that new plaintiff. I don't think it's going to happen.

-----------------------

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Obama stole his LOGO with no credit

Barack Obama's maternal white grandmother has died in what may be the first politically timed terminal sedation.

There goes the witness to the facts of his birth.

indeed.

First,. there was Orphan Annie, then came DannieLynn ( Anna Nicole Smith's)  & now we have Obie.

Even pitbull Palin's mom will be voting for obie tomorrow because of that.   One the brither side, #0000ff">Auntie Zeituni Onyango is still around.  She's  in disguise of course but who cares, right? Thank God for auntie! 

Please say  Hi to auntie Z err "Em" if you ever  see her on street.

Obama Demands Extensive Disclosure for Potential Appointees

Nov. 15, 2008
President-Elect Barack Obama has demanded that all potential appointees undergo a thorough background check prior to being considered for any job in his administration. Would-be cabinet members, deputies, assistants, aides, secretaries, and receptionists are being asked to provide extensive dossiers on themselves if they hope to be hired.

Among the documents required are original birth certificates, all school transcripts, complete health records, military service histories, any police reports, and a listing of all business and personal associates since the applicant’s 18th birthday. Applicants are also being required to submit, under penalty of perjury, sworn affidavits either admitting to the commission of any illegal acts for which no police records exist or attesting that no illegal acts were ever committed.

“My administration will be the cleanest in the history of this country,” Obama proclaimed. “There must be no taint of illicit actions or associations to undermine the nation’s faith in me....

The best satires are the one that get you hopping mad before they say
Gotcha!