reply to post by Sublime620
hello 1 time i used Bergs site! the rest of the time i have used the federal court docket system, independent law schools, Google books for Indonesian
law. a website ran by the state of Hawaii for His sisters birth certificate. oh and i used WIKI to show it wasn't a creditable source because it
could be edited by anyone.
you and the other obama supports use factcheck.org which is funded by the ANNENBERG Foundation. the same Foundation that Obama served on their board
of directors. use WIKI as proof, Quote sections of Obama's book.
i have went out of my way to use neutral sources. i guess its to hard to find sources that are neutral to back up obama supporters?
the case should be over on a technicality Obama didn't respond within 30 days
to this motion
and never once have i used faked quotes! granted to back up the nationality act of 1940 you will have to go to a library to research it because it is
not online yet.
whats laughable is the fact the second someone says something that goes against Obama his supporter come running in using biased sources,if they use
sources at all. resort to spin and accusations of personal attacks to try and mislead people seeking the truth.
your right though, we need to wait for the case to play out in court. winning on a BS technicality is a really crappy way to win and it doesn't
settle a thing.
The fastest way for this to be put to bed is for Obama to show a vault copy of his birth certificate. the Certificate that has been floating around is
not a vault copy! for Obama to produce the records for which passport he used to travel to Indonesia, then Pakistan etc. when he was 20!
But since Mr. Obama doesn't think he needs to prove to potential voters that he is eligible to be POTUS we are forced to wait on a Judge to decide
this lawsuit.
I know if i was running for POTUS and someone questioned my citizenship i'd hand over a vault copy of my birth certificate to the media for them to
have anaylized.
And I would think the Dems would have pushed Obama to produce a vault copy of his birth certificate and any other documents to prove his natural born
citizenship status. so if he wasn't eligible they could replace him on the ticket before the election. Now its to late. if they take him off the
ticket there will not be a dem candidate. since the new candidate would have missed the filing date in all 50 states.
Obama (Barry Soetoro)Has Duel Citizenship? , page 7
privacy
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 08:50 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by daddyroo45
Not really all it is doing is asking the judge to hurry up and make a rulling on the lawsuit. and he is asking to be paid a fee for bringing this suit to try and speed it up.
edit to add: On the same token he's telling Obama to quit stalling and produce his documents to prove he is a natural born citizen or he is going to keep seeking money the longer he takes.
[edit on 10/23/2008 by Mercenary2007]
Not really all it is doing is asking the judge to hurry up and make a rulling on the lawsuit. and he is asking to be paid a fee for bringing this suit to try and speed it up.
edit to add: On the same token he's telling Obama to quit stalling and produce his documents to prove he is a natural born citizen or he is going to keep seeking money the longer he takes.
[edit on 10/23/2008 by Mercenary2007]
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 09:03 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by Mercenary2007
I didn't just quote factcheck.org. I quoted factcheck.org quoting law. Here is a google search of that exact code:
fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank" class="postlink">Google
Here's some more:
Uunhcr.org
This act did not apply to Obama. He was not of age.
Again, "of full age".
None of the laws under apply to him because he was not of age.
Here, a newspaper reported that Obama has dual citizenship. It was removed because it was false.
Rocky Mountain News
Here is a formal apology from the same site for reporting false information.
Fight the Smears
Another fact check website that agrees with the logical stance.
See the problem with your stance is that you call these sites liars. They base their reputations off of not spinning stories and telling the real truth about things.
For them to make up a petty lie like you are accusing, is to basically throw themselves and their entire business under the bus by losing credibility. You are suggesting that they are willing to become non-existent because they know Obama?
I didn't just quote factcheck.org. I quoted factcheck.org quoting law. Here is a google search of that exact code:
fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank" class="postlink">Google
Here's some more:
Uunhcr.org
Notwithstanding the Age of Majority Act, a person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be of full age if he has attained the age of twenty-one years, and of full capacity if he is not of unsound mind.
This act did not apply to Obama. He was not of age.
Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a person of full age and capacity, on making application to the Minister in the prescribed manner, may be registered as a citizen of Kenya is he satisfies the Minister—
Again, "of full age".
None of the laws under apply to him because he was not of age.
Here, a newspaper reported that Obama has dual citizenship. It was removed because it was false.
Rocky Mountain News
Editor's note: One of the items on this list has been removed because it mistakenly repeated a report that Barack Obama holds dual United States-Kenyan citizenship. This erroneous information was never reported in the Rocky Mountain News print edition.
Here is a formal apology from the same site for reporting false information.
Fight the Smears
Another fact check website that agrees with the logical stance.
See the problem with your stance is that you call these sites liars. They base their reputations off of not spinning stories and telling the real truth about things.
For them to make up a petty lie like you are accusing, is to basically throw themselves and their entire business under the bus by losing credibility. You are suggesting that they are willing to become non-existent because they know Obama?
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 09:33 PM by Areal51
Originally posted by Mercenary2007
oh and they had a discovery conference. Obama's lawyer wanted to stay discovery until after the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss.
You've misunderstood the call between Berg and Obama's attorney. The call was specifically in reference to Obama's attorney asking to delay discovery, it was not a call in reference to answering or objecting to the discovery itself; it was not about planning for discovery. Rule 26 (f) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is explicit about this:
(2) Conference Content; Parties' Responsibilities.www.law.cornell.edu...
In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.
(3) Discovery Plan.
...
So the discovery conference never took place as per Rule 26 (f); which means the 30-day clock never started running. Berg doesn't agree with those rules, but the judge will have the last say on the matter.
As for the MOTION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by the Obama defense. Rule 26 (c) specifically allows for it in this case:
(c) Protective Orders.www.law.cornell.edu...
(1) In General.
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...
Berg submitted over 50 admissions requests for which discovery motions had to be met by both Obama and the DNC. So the Obama/DNC defense are asserting undue burden, among other things.
From BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION:
Plaintiff has served extensive discovery requests on defendants. As noted in Defendants’ Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, this lawsuit is entirely without merit and plaintiffs’ allegations are patently false. Defendants have moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. That motion presents solely issues of law; no discovery is needed in order to resolve the motion. If the motion is granted, it will dispose of the entire action, obviating the need for the burdensome discovery sought by plaintiff. A protective order staying discovery is therefore warranted.Motion Of Protective Order
this is the first site i gave for Maya's birth certificate. it is run by the State of Hawaii.
IS A STATE RUN WEBSITE
It's a commercial site that's posing as a government site. It merely accesses publicly available records. And since Hawaii protects access to birth records for its residents under state privacy laws, the site is useless.
In support of that from The Hon. Bert I. Ayabe, Judge Of The Circuit Court Of The First Circuit, State Of Hawaii's ruling against Andy Martin seeking Obama's records through mandamus relief a few days ago:
SeeHRS § 338-18 (b) (Supp. 2007) (The department shall disclose vital statistics records to those persons enumerated in HRS § 338-18 (b) (1) through (13); otherwise, "[t]he department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.").PDF of Court Opinion
If Andy Martin couldn't get Obama's records through a court order, then we surely won't be able to get a hold of his sister Maya's records through a commercial site that access public databases.
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 09:45 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Sublime620
doesn't apply to this case sorry. you have to use immigration and citizenship laws that were in effect in 1961 and they say 18. again you will have to go to a library and read up on the Nationality act of 1940
some of the relevant sections of that act have been transferred over to US Code and is available online.
if your source for Obama's Kenyan citizenship is correct that takes care of that. But you haven't covered his Indonesian citizenship.
i have posted sources for the Indonesian laws that are online they are on page 6 i think
I am calling factcheck.org a liar yes, because they say the are unbiased, but that is called into question when one of the candidates sat on the board of directors of the foundation that funds them.
Listen lets put the Obama Supporter not Obama support aside for a second for this issue.
no matter how much a person says they aren't biased, deep down we all know that's a lie. everyone has their own personal bias. So would you say a source that is funded by a foundation that one of the candidates served on the board of directors was more than likely to be biased in his favor? He served on the board, at the very least the credibility of the people that are suppose to be unbiased is questionable.
and i ask you what Business? their only funding comes from the Annenberg foundation. no one else.
that depends on where they were born. if they were born outside of the U.S. then no they can't be a natural born citizen. unless they were born on sovereign u.s. property in a foreign land.
But in Obama's Case in 1961 the U.S. did not allow dual citizenship. which this comes into play when Obama moved to Indonesia. to go to school there he had to be a citizen of Indonesia. so Lolo either had to adopt him or acknowledge him as his son, which by indonesian law makes Obama a citizen of Indonesia.
Also In 1961 custody followed the custodial parent. Obama's mother became an Indonesian citizen when she moved to Indonesia with Obama.
another thing that goes against Obama. is that he traveled to Pakistan when he was 20. At that time U.S. citizens were barred from entering Pakistan, so which passport did he use? if he used an Indonesian passport at the age of 20 then that's considered the same as taking an oath to a foreign country by U.S. Code. and Made him a citizen of Indonesia and strips him of his U.S. Citizenship if he was a U.S. citizen at the time.
this is why Obama Needs to provide a vault copy of his birth certificate. because it will list which hospital he was born in which Dr. delivered him.
He also needs to provide the oath of allegiance to the U.S. he took after returning to the U.S.
And he also needs to produce records of which passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
from looking at the federal docket system Berg has supplied records he says proves his case. i wish those documents were available to view online through the docket system but they aren't. I'd Imagine if we could see those documents it would answer a lot of questions.
So we are going to have to wait this on out and i hope its sooner than later.
And just for the record I would be fighting this hard against McCain if there was any question about his Citizenship since he was born outside the U.S. I'm an equal opportunity discriminator
Notwithstanding the Age of Majority Act a person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be of full age if he has attained the age of twenty-one years, and of full capacity if he is not of unsound mind.
doesn't apply to this case sorry. you have to use immigration and citizenship laws that were in effect in 1961 and they say 18. again you will have to go to a library and read up on the Nationality act of 1940
some of the relevant sections of that act have been transferred over to US Code and is available online.
if your source for Obama's Kenyan citizenship is correct that takes care of that. But you haven't covered his Indonesian citizenship.
i have posted sources for the Indonesian laws that are online they are on page 6 i think
I am calling factcheck.org a liar yes, because they say the are unbiased, but that is called into question when one of the candidates sat on the board of directors of the foundation that funds them.
Listen lets put the Obama Supporter not Obama support aside for a second for this issue.
no matter how much a person says they aren't biased, deep down we all know that's a lie. everyone has their own personal bias. So would you say a source that is funded by a foundation that one of the candidates served on the board of directors was more than likely to be biased in his favor? He served on the board, at the very least the credibility of the people that are suppose to be unbiased is questionable.
and i ask you what Business? their only funding comes from the Annenberg foundation. no one else.
Also, I've heard a lot about anyone who has ever had dual-citizenship cannot be "natural born". Anyone care to back this up or can we write it off as another lie?
that depends on where they were born. if they were born outside of the U.S. then no they can't be a natural born citizen. unless they were born on sovereign u.s. property in a foreign land.
But in Obama's Case in 1961 the U.S. did not allow dual citizenship. which this comes into play when Obama moved to Indonesia. to go to school there he had to be a citizen of Indonesia. so Lolo either had to adopt him or acknowledge him as his son, which by indonesian law makes Obama a citizen of Indonesia.
Also In 1961 custody followed the custodial parent. Obama's mother became an Indonesian citizen when she moved to Indonesia with Obama.
another thing that goes against Obama. is that he traveled to Pakistan when he was 20. At that time U.S. citizens were barred from entering Pakistan, so which passport did he use? if he used an Indonesian passport at the age of 20 then that's considered the same as taking an oath to a foreign country by U.S. Code. and Made him a citizen of Indonesia and strips him of his U.S. Citizenship if he was a U.S. citizen at the time.
this is why Obama Needs to provide a vault copy of his birth certificate. because it will list which hospital he was born in which Dr. delivered him.
He also needs to provide the oath of allegiance to the U.S. he took after returning to the U.S.
And he also needs to produce records of which passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
from looking at the federal docket system Berg has supplied records he says proves his case. i wish those documents were available to view online through the docket system but they aren't. I'd Imagine if we could see those documents it would answer a lot of questions.
So we are going to have to wait this on out and i hope its sooner than later.
And just for the record I would be fighting this hard against McCain if there was any question about his Citizenship since he was born outside the U.S. I'm an equal opportunity discriminator
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 10:03 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by Mercenary2007
Neg, this took precedent over those laws. In fact, before this law was established, Kenya was a British Colony. So he would not have have citizenship to Kenya, it would have been with Great Britain.
That is my understanding. In fact, if his father wanted, he had to option of becoming a British Citizen in 1963. Correct me if I am wrong.
*Edit to add:
I agree with your statement that everyone holds some sort of bias. However, in this case, the bias would seem to be shadowed by the need to report facts. If for one instance they let bias take over, their site will cease to exist.
**Edit again:
And I know nothing of his citizenship or lack there of in Indonesia. I have not even seen any of that evidence.
***Edit again:
Sorry I didn't respond to the whole post. I can only give so much energy on a topic at a time and I think I am through for now (at least for tonight).
I do enjoy debating with you on the issue far more than most on here. Evidence is not that difficult to produce if you have a valid claim, yet most people here feel they don't need it.
So, I appreciate when members who argue with me provide it.
[edit on 23-10-2008 by Sublime620]
Neg, this took precedent over those laws. In fact, before this law was established, Kenya was a British Colony. So he would not have have citizenship to Kenya, it would have been with Great Britain.
That is my understanding. In fact, if his father wanted, he had to option of becoming a British Citizen in 1963. Correct me if I am wrong.
*Edit to add:
I agree with your statement that everyone holds some sort of bias. However, in this case, the bias would seem to be shadowed by the need to report facts. If for one instance they let bias take over, their site will cease to exist.
**Edit again:
And I know nothing of his citizenship or lack there of in Indonesia. I have not even seen any of that evidence.
***Edit again:
Sorry I didn't respond to the whole post. I can only give so much energy on a topic at a time and I think I am through for now (at least for tonight).
I do enjoy debating with you on the issue far more than most on here. Evidence is not that difficult to produce if you have a valid claim, yet most people here feel they don't need it.
So, I appreciate when members who argue with me provide it.
[edit on 23-10-2008 by Sublime620]
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 10:14 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Sublime620
the age of maturity act you sourced is for Kenya. it doesn't apply.
the age of 18 requirement i was speaking of is U.S. Code! and would apply after Obama Moved back to Hawaii from Indonesia. if he was a U.S. Citizen
the age of maturity act you sourced is for Kenya. it doesn't apply.
the age of 18 requirement i was speaking of is U.S. Code! and would apply after Obama Moved back to Hawaii from Indonesia. if he was a U.S. Citizen
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 10:17 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by Mercenary2007
Oh okay. I'll have to look into the Indonesian accusation. Is that in Berg's lawsuit too?
I know he's accused him of being born in Kenya, and I believe, if the born in Kenya thing failed, accused him of having dual citizenship (forcing him to renounce his American citizenship).
Is this in it also?
Oh okay. I'll have to look into the Indonesian accusation. Is that in Berg's lawsuit too?
I know he's accused him of being born in Kenya, and I believe, if the born in Kenya thing failed, accused him of having dual citizenship (forcing him to renounce his American citizenship).
Is this in it also?
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 10:20 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Sublime620
i agree its fun arguing when the person arguing with you is trying to supply unbiased facts and sources and who genuinely whats to learn the truth and that's what i'm after is the truth. we as american citizens are entitled to it and as voters politicians are supposed to be accountable to us.
you unlike most obama supporters don't resort to spin, false accusations of personal attacks. thanks for that it makes the debate more enjoyable
i agree its fun arguing when the person arguing with you is trying to supply unbiased facts and sources and who genuinely whats to learn the truth and that's what i'm after is the truth. we as american citizens are entitled to it and as voters politicians are supposed to be accountable to us.
you unlike most obama supporters don't resort to spin, false accusations of personal attacks. thanks for that it makes the debate more enjoyable
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 11:20 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Areal51
they met the requirements of rule Rule 26 (f) they attempted in good faith to try and agree. Obama's lawyer wanted to wait until the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss, Berg didn't.
The clock started when Berg and Obama's lawyer talked Via phone and they couldn't agree on a discovery plan. that was their discovery conference.
If you want to get Technical about it In Berg's lawsuit Obama and the DNC have different requirements and they should have filed separate motions for dismissal.
no one said anything about protective orders. Both Berg and Obama has filed for them! however the only protective order that was ruled on was the one filed by Berg and it was denied. and that order was to stop Obama and the DNC from continuing Obama's Campaign until this was resolved!
there has only been 27 motions total in the case from aug 21 to oct 22.
of those 27 motions only 4 motions have to do with admissions or discovery filed by Berg. did you bother to research for yourself how many motions have been filed? apparently not. 4 motions is a lot less than 50 motions, and is not an undue burden!
justia
they met the requirements of rule Rule 26 (f) they attempted in good faith to try and agree. Obama's lawyer wanted to wait until the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss, Berg didn't.
The clock started when Berg and Obama's lawyer talked Via phone and they couldn't agree on a discovery plan. that was their discovery conference.
If you want to get Technical about it In Berg's lawsuit Obama and the DNC have different requirements and they should have filed separate motions for dismissal.
no one said anything about protective orders. Both Berg and Obama has filed for them! however the only protective order that was ruled on was the one filed by Berg and it was denied. and that order was to stop Obama and the DNC from continuing Obama's Campaign until this was resolved!
there has only been 27 motions total in the case from aug 21 to oct 22.
of those 27 motions only 4 motions have to do with admissions or discovery filed by Berg. did you bother to research for yourself how many motions have been filed? apparently not. 4 motions is a lot less than 50 motions, and is not an undue burden!
justia
reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 11:33 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Sublime620
yes being an Indonesian citizen is in Berg's Lawsuit. he's not claiming Obama has dual Citizenship with Indonesia. He is flat out saying Obama Is a Indonesian Citizen and not a U.S. citizen.
i've covered this in the earlier pages while arguing so if you need me to go into more detail about it let me know i'll catch you up.
yes being an Indonesian citizen is in Berg's Lawsuit. he's not claiming Obama has dual Citizenship with Indonesia. He is flat out saying Obama Is a Indonesian Citizen and not a U.S. citizen.
i've covered this in the earlier pages while arguing so if you need me to go into more detail about it let me know i'll catch you up.
reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 04:58 AM by Areal51
Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Sublime620
yes being an Indonesian citizen is in Berg's Lawsuit. he's not claiming Obama has dual Citizenship with Indonesia. He is flat out saying Obama Is a Indonesian Citizen and not a U.S. citizen.
For which Berg lacks evidence and proof.
That is what is wrong with this case. Berg is whipping up a frenzy in the public, and so far Berg has yet to produce any evidence supporting that Obama was born in Kenya, was not born in Hawaii, is still an Indonesian citizen today. Those are the facts. Regardless of Berg's ranting and raving otherwise.
reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 10:25 AM by Areal51
reply to post by Mercenary2007
Despite your claims, you have misunderstood things yet again.
No planning took place in the phone conversation as per Rule 26 (f). The call, made on October 6, 2008, from Obama and the DNC's attorney to Berg, was not about planning for discovery. Obama and the DNC's attorney simply called Berg to ask if he were willing to delay discovery pending the decision of the defense's dispositive motion; that is, the Motion to Dismiss that the defense's attorney filed on September 24, 2008.
Rather than filing three separate complaints against Obama, the DNC, and the FEC, Berg filed only one for convenience, and as a courtesy to the judge, the court, himself, and the named defendants mentioned in the complaint.
Obama and the DNC filed a Proposed Order for Motion to Dismiss together for the same reasons: convenience and courtesy. The Judge is not limited to the courtesy of Obama and the DNC's Proposed Order. If needed, the Judge would simply issue two separate Orders. Otherwise, the Proposed Order that Obama and the DNC filed might be sufficient; especially if the judge rules that Berg lacks standing to be granted relief as per Berg's filed complaint.
Separate from the other defendants, the FEC filed a Motion To Dismiss on October 21, 2008. Because it is a government entity, the FEC had a longer period of time to answer the complaint that Berg filed on August 21, 2008. The FEC had 60 days, excluding weekends, to respond to the complaint.
I did. And the protective order that I mentioned was the MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION (which Rule 26 (c) allows) that was filed by Obama and the DNC's defense. That is the Motion that the defense filed subsequent to the October 6, 2008 phone call that the defense's attorney made to Berg wherein Berg refused to voluntarily delay discovery.
I said, over 50 admissions requests were served by Berg to Obama and the DNC. As part of Berg's complaint that was filed on August 21, 2008, Berg served Obama and the DNC a list of admissions requests on September 15, 2008. Those admissions requests totaled to more than 50. Each of those admissions requests essentially is a separate motion that the defense has to answer or object to.
I did NOT say that the plaintiff, Berg, filed more than 50 separate Proposed Orders for Motion to _________. NOR did I say that the total number of filings between the plaintiff and the named defendants exceeded 50.
On October 21, 2008 Berg posted on his website, Obamacrimes.com, that Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations. Berg was referring to the list of admissions requests that he served Obama and the DNC with on September 15, 2008.
Berg contends that because the admissions requests were neither answered or objected to, the law dictates judgment in his favor.
On October 22, 2008 Berg filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which asks that the court issue judgment in his favor, because the defense failed to answer or object to the admissions requests that Berg served them with on September 15, 2008.
However, as I have previously stated twice, there is a question whether Berg followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure properly.
According to Rule 26 (f) Berg cannot files admission requests before a conference planning for discovery has been held. That is, the conference planning for discovery comes BEFORE the defense is served with admissions requests.
And that's that.
We await the judge's ruling. Which could be handed down at any time.
Despite your claims, you have misunderstood things yet again.
Originally posted by Mercenary2007
they met the requirements of rule Rule 26 (f) they attempted in good faith to try and agree. Obama's lawyer wanted to wait until the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss, Berg didn't.
The clock started when Berg and Obama's lawyer talked Via phone and they couldn't agree on a discovery plan. that was their discovery conference.
No planning took place in the phone conversation as per Rule 26 (f). The call, made on October 6, 2008, from Obama and the DNC's attorney to Berg, was not about planning for discovery. Obama and the DNC's attorney simply called Berg to ask if he were willing to delay discovery pending the decision of the defense's dispositive motion; that is, the Motion to Dismiss that the defense's attorney filed on September 24, 2008.
If you want to get Technical about it In Berg's lawsuit Obama and the DNC have different requirements and they should have filed separate motions for dismissal.
Rather than filing three separate complaints against Obama, the DNC, and the FEC, Berg filed only one for convenience, and as a courtesy to the judge, the court, himself, and the named defendants mentioned in the complaint.
Obama and the DNC filed a Proposed Order for Motion to Dismiss together for the same reasons: convenience and courtesy. The Judge is not limited to the courtesy of Obama and the DNC's Proposed Order. If needed, the Judge would simply issue two separate Orders. Otherwise, the Proposed Order that Obama and the DNC filed might be sufficient; especially if the judge rules that Berg lacks standing to be granted relief as per Berg's filed complaint.
Separate from the other defendants, the FEC filed a Motion To Dismiss on October 21, 2008. Because it is a government entity, the FEC had a longer period of time to answer the complaint that Berg filed on August 21, 2008. The FEC had 60 days, excluding weekends, to respond to the complaint.
no one said anything about protective orders.
I did. And the protective order that I mentioned was the MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION (which Rule 26 (c) allows) that was filed by Obama and the DNC's defense. That is the Motion that the defense filed subsequent to the October 6, 2008 phone call that the defense's attorney made to Berg wherein Berg refused to voluntarily delay discovery.
there has only been 27 motions total in the case from aug 21 to oct 22.
of those 27 motions only 4 motions have to do with admissions or discovery filed by Berg. did you bother to research for yourself how many motions have been filed? apparently not. 4 motions is a lot less than 50 motions, and is not an undue burden!
I said, over 50 admissions requests were served by Berg to Obama and the DNC. As part of Berg's complaint that was filed on August 21, 2008, Berg served Obama and the DNC a list of admissions requests on September 15, 2008. Those admissions requests totaled to more than 50. Each of those admissions requests essentially is a separate motion that the defense has to answer or object to.
I did NOT say that the plaintiff, Berg, filed more than 50 separate Proposed Orders for Motion to _________. NOR did I say that the total number of filings between the plaintiff and the named defendants exceeded 50.
On October 21, 2008 Berg posted on his website, Obamacrimes.com, that Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations. Berg was referring to the list of admissions requests that he served Obama and the DNC with on September 15, 2008.
Berg contends that because the admissions requests were neither answered or objected to, the law dictates judgment in his favor.
On October 22, 2008 Berg filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which asks that the court issue judgment in his favor, because the defense failed to answer or object to the admissions requests that Berg served them with on September 15, 2008.
However, as I have previously stated twice, there is a question whether Berg followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure properly.
According to Rule 26 (f) Berg cannot files admission requests before a conference planning for discovery has been held. That is, the conference planning for discovery comes BEFORE the defense is served with admissions requests.
And that's that.
We await the judge's ruling. Which could be handed down at any time.
reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 11:37 AM by Areal51
reply to post by Areal51
Quoting myself just so all will understand this bit (which is central to the entire post where the quote originally appears).
Berg served the admissions requests to Obama and the DNC on September 15, 2008. The phone call between the defense and Berg that took place on October 6, 2008, was in reference to the defense asking if Berg would voluntarily delay discovery. Since that call took place on October 6, 2008, and after the defense was served with admissions requests by Berg on September 15, 2008, the call couldn't have served as the conference planning for discovery which had to take place before admissions requests were served on September 15, 2008.
Berg claims that since the defense was served the admissions requests on September 15, 2008, and neither answered or objected to them within 30 days, that by law judgment should be decided in his favor. Again, the question is what will the judge think about the fact that a conference planning for discovery never took place; that Berg violated the Federal Rules of Procedure -- Rule 26 (f). Berg took a risk by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 22, 2008.
It is a technicality, but given the chance, the defense will argue the point that the 30-day clock never started to run because Berg served the admissions requests before a conference for discovery planning took place.
I know, that's very repetitive, but I did it for clarity. Hope that's clear!
Again, we await the judge's ruling on many things.
[edit on 24-10-2008 by Areal51]
Originally posted by Areal51
According to Rule 26 (f) Berg cannot files admission requests before a conference planning for discovery has been held. That is, the conference planning for discovery comes BEFORE the defense is served with admissions requests.
Quoting myself just so all will understand this bit (which is central to the entire post where the quote originally appears).
Berg served the admissions requests to Obama and the DNC on September 15, 2008. The phone call between the defense and Berg that took place on October 6, 2008, was in reference to the defense asking if Berg would voluntarily delay discovery. Since that call took place on October 6, 2008, and after the defense was served with admissions requests by Berg on September 15, 2008, the call couldn't have served as the conference planning for discovery which had to take place before admissions requests were served on September 15, 2008.
Berg claims that since the defense was served the admissions requests on September 15, 2008, and neither answered or objected to them within 30 days, that by law judgment should be decided in his favor. Again, the question is what will the judge think about the fact that a conference planning for discovery never took place; that Berg violated the Federal Rules of Procedure -- Rule 26 (f). Berg took a risk by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 22, 2008.
It is a technicality, but given the chance, the defense will argue the point that the 30-day clock never started to run because Berg served the admissions requests before a conference for discovery planning took place.
I know, that's very repetitive, but I did it for clarity. Hope that's clear!
Again, we await the judge's ruling on many things.
[edit on 24-10-2008 by Areal51]
reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 05:59 PM by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Areal51
i know you think Berg violated rule 26(f) but he didn't you have to file a motion for discovery before a conference can occur. the conference is just to lay out the date and time that both parties will hand over the document that the parties are requesting.
Obam'a lawyer wanted to delay handing over those documents "Discover" until after the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Yes Berg listed Obama, the DNC, and the FEC together in his suit for convenience, he laid out different reasons for his lawsuit for each of them. which means if all three wanted to file a motion to dismiss, they would have to do it separately as they have different requirements to prove in their part of the lawsuit.
IF and i say IF any of the 3 defendants could file a joint motion to dismiss it is the DNC and the FEC as they pretty much have the same requirements to prove, which is there vetting process on candidates.
Plus Berg has been trying to get an expedited discovery and ruling on his lawsuit so rule 26(f) doesn't apply in that instance
i know you think Berg violated rule 26(f) but he didn't you have to file a motion for discovery before a conference can occur. the conference is just to lay out the date and time that both parties will hand over the document that the parties are requesting.
Obam'a lawyer wanted to delay handing over those documents "Discover" until after the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Yes Berg listed Obama, the DNC, and the FEC together in his suit for convenience, he laid out different reasons for his lawsuit for each of them. which means if all three wanted to file a motion to dismiss, they would have to do it separately as they have different requirements to prove in their part of the lawsuit.
IF and i say IF any of the 3 defendants could file a joint motion to dismiss it is the DNC and the FEC as they pretty much have the same requirements to prove, which is there vetting process on candidates.
Plus Berg has been trying to get an expedited discovery and ruling on his lawsuit so rule 26(f) doesn't apply in that instance
reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 06:06 PM by Mercenary2007
and i agree with the FEC they shouldn't have been named in the suit. They don't have oversight over the constitutional requirements of a
candidate.
FEC
The judge should dismiss the case against the FEC.
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.
The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions. The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term.
FEC
The judge should dismiss the case against the FEC.
reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 06:06 AM by Areal51
reply to post by Mercenary2007
Yes, I do think it was violated but it is a technicality, and depending on what the judge is interested in, the issue may or may not be substantial. How we would know that the conference planning for discovery was never held; from Rule 26 (f):
A proposed discovery plan has never been submitted to the court. Subsequent motions would have mentioned it, especially Berg's Motion For Summary Judgment. So is it a big deal? We don't know yet.
As for defendants filing a Motion to Dismiss separate or together, it's clearly voluntary, at least in the beginning. If it were mandatory to file separate motions, where rules of procedure demanded it or the judge ordered it, the attorneys for Obama and the DNC would have.
The other thing is expense, does Berg want three separate trials? Of course not. So he didn't file three complaints for that purpose also. And Berg wouldn't want the judge to order separate litigation either. So, in this case, I think that Obama and the DNC filing a Motion to Dismiss together is not an issue.
One thing that I didn't think about until just now, is that Berg naming the three defendants in his complaint implies cooperation and possibly collusion. Now whether that works in his favor or not, is an unanswered question. But -- implying conspiracy is not the best way forward to win a case that should be cut and dry.
The issue is Obama's eligibility to run for POTUS. It's not about the responsibility of the DNC or FEC in connection with Obama; whether either knowingly or unknowingly made concessions on behalf of Obama, with or without Obama's knowledge, that violated their policies and the law. But Berg implies this. And to avoid making those implications, he should have filed separate complaints. So, again, who knows what the judge will think or decide.
[edit on 25-10-2008 by Areal51]
Yes, I do think it was violated but it is a technicality, and depending on what the judge is interested in, the issue may or may not be substantial. How we would know that the conference planning for discovery was never held; from Rule 26 (f):
The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan.www.law.cornell.edu...
A proposed discovery plan has never been submitted to the court. Subsequent motions would have mentioned it, especially Berg's Motion For Summary Judgment. So is it a big deal? We don't know yet.
As for defendants filing a Motion to Dismiss separate or together, it's clearly voluntary, at least in the beginning. If it were mandatory to file separate motions, where rules of procedure demanded it or the judge ordered it, the attorneys for Obama and the DNC would have.
The other thing is expense, does Berg want three separate trials? Of course not. So he didn't file three complaints for that purpose also. And Berg wouldn't want the judge to order separate litigation either. So, in this case, I think that Obama and the DNC filing a Motion to Dismiss together is not an issue.
One thing that I didn't think about until just now, is that Berg naming the three defendants in his complaint implies cooperation and possibly collusion. Now whether that works in his favor or not, is an unanswered question. But -- implying conspiracy is not the best way forward to win a case that should be cut and dry.
The issue is Obama's eligibility to run for POTUS. It's not about the responsibility of the DNC or FEC in connection with Obama; whether either knowingly or unknowingly made concessions on behalf of Obama, with or without Obama's knowledge, that violated their policies and the law. But Berg implies this. And to avoid making those implications, he should have filed separate complaints. So, again, who knows what the judge will think or decide.
[edit on 25-10-2008 by Areal51]
DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
US threatens Sweden with watch list sanctions if they don’t prosecute The Pirate Bay.
Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Medical Scientists & Doctors Finally Stand Up To The Feds: Suing Them For Spying
Posted 12 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 7 member flags
WW2 US mutiny in Australia by African-Americans soldiers uncovered
Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Guy gets thrown out bar because of smoking, comes back with chainsaw
Other Current Events, Posted 14 minutes ago
Other Current Events, Posted 14 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
The Scale of the Universe- Amazing, Controllable Flash Animation!
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 26 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 26 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 8 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 8 hours ago, 19 flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 16 hours ago, 17 flags
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 16 hours ago, 17 flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 6 hours ago, 16 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 6 hours ago, 16 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 15 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 15 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 105 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 105 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 7 hours ago, 71 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 7 hours ago, 71 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
Second most devastating oil spill? Massive oil spill in Venezuela
Fragile Earth, Posted 12 hours ago, 51 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 12 hours ago, 51 replies
ATS Live North America is broadcasting now.
Today's Show: ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
Today's Show: ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.523 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.523 seconds
