[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Russia's Dark Future A Missile Shield for America - A Trillion Dollar Fantasy? Kentucky School Board Chairman Resigns After Calling for People to ‘Shoot Republicans’ These Are 2025's 'Most Livable' Cities Nicotine and Fish Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case. Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter With great power comes no accountability. Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%. Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes ! Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium' Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans - Will U.S. Follow Suit? Joe Rogan CALLS OUT Israel's Media CONTROL Communist Billionaire Accused Of Funding Anti-ICE Riots Mysteriously Vanishes 6 Factors That Describe China's Current State Trump Thteatens to Bomb Moscow and Beijing Little Bitty Vertiv Drops After Amazon Unveils In-House Liquid Cooling System, Marking Pivot To Liquid 17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago

National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Judge denies stay, orders discovery of Obama's birth certificates
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 9, 2008
Author: Starwind
Post Date: 2008-10-09 12:18:48 by Starwind
Keywords: None
Views: 5355
Comments: 101

Follow it free at BERG v. OBAMA et al (Justia) (not updated yet)

Follow it via Pacer at United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08-cv-04083-RBS (current as of this AM)

This AM, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, J. ordered (document #18):

ORDERED and DECREED as follows:

1. Defendants Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery pending the Court's Decision on Defendants dispositive Motion is DENIED;
2. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to Answer Plaintiff's Discovery Requests by way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents by October 15, 2008.

Poster Comment:

This could be a game changer.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 87.

#1. To: Starwind (#0)

Yep......operative word is COULD. So often, everyone gets disappointed cause things come to naught.

I'm not planning to hold my breath.....LOL.

Great to see you posting Starwind. Miss your great comments.

rowdee  posted on  2008-10-09   12:32:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So often, everyone gets disappointed cause things come to naught.

Indeed. The wheels of Justice grind slowly, and often go flat (e.g. Libby's pardon and the end of Plamegate investigation).

In this case, it would not have gotten this far if there weren't a lot of evidence demonstrating ambiguity of Obama's status. Further, this isn't a case that can be pardoned away. It could only be suppressed on appeal, and I don't see the basis for Obama prevail on appeal to prevent discovery.

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-09   13:06:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

IT is indeed interesting that the judge, rather than just tossing the case out or declaring he has no standing or some other horsepockey reason to stymie the very real questions, has given them a week to come up with some answers.

I think maybe I am starting to see some that is sort of being alluded to, or suggested.

rowdee  posted on  2008-10-10   13:06:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

A news blog has now picked up the story:

Obama's Citizenship?:

I have just recently found a lawsuit being "fought" to determine the citizenship of Barack Obama. I simply cannot believe the mainstream media has not informed the Country of the presence and details of this lawsuit.

[Starwind: lol - go figure]

[...snip...] The heart of the lawsuit appears to be a request Obama produce: (1). "Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; (2). A certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship; (3). A certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance. Apparently Obama has refused to supply such documents. He has recently been ordered by the Court to produce the documents. [....snip]

And the Justia copy of the dockett has been updated:
http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/ pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/

and the Crt Order I excerpted above can be down loaded free from Justia:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/ district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/18/0.pdf

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-10   16:41:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

A conservative news/comment site has picked up the story:

Finally! It's Berg vs Obama In Federal Court!

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-10   19:17:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Ping to Starwind's #28 and #29.

christine  posted on  2008-10-11   16:05:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's another:

This could be the game changer

There is a youtube video at the link from "illuminati productions" about Obama's questioned birth certificates. I've not seen the full video, only first couple of minutes, .... youtube seems to hang a lot lately. The video is:

"I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise)"

at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-11   19:33:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Good stuff Star, thanks.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-10-11   19:40:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Good stuff Star, thanks.

Enjoy... but I gather everyone has been.

lol - I just now realized the video "I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise)" is the "October Surprise" video everyone is posting about hither and yon.

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-11   20:04:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So I have now seen the full "October Surprise" video. I watched at a different link than I posted above :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w&NR=1

(but it seems identical to "I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise)" linked in my post #31)

Note carefully, the video was made before the Judge denied Obama's move to stay discovery, and the Judge just two days ago Ordered Obama and the DNC to produce the documents and answer the questions as part of Berg's discovery. The Judge gave Obama until Wednesday, Oct 15th to provide documents and answers. Given a couple days grace, by Friday Obama will:
a) Appeal, which in itself will be newsworthy
b) Provide answers, which will again be newsworthy
c) do nothing, missing the deadline, which will again be newsworthy

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-11   21:37:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Note carefully, the video was made before the Judge denied Obama's move to stay discovery, and the Judge just two days ago Ordered Obama and the DNC to produce the documents and answer the questions as part of Berg's discovery. The Judge gave Obama until Wednesday, Oct 15th to provide documents and answers. Given a couple days grace, by Friday Obama will: a) Appeal, which in itself will be newsworthy b) Provide answers, which will again be newsworthy c) do nothing, missing the deadline, which will again be newsworthy

Are you sure? There was some confusion about this when people who read the order prepared by Berg (that's how its done-the attorney requesting an order prepares it for the judge's sig) didn't realize that it was not signed, but, they reported it as if the judge had written the order instead of Berg as part of his original filing.

And, according to the docket (with it's latest entry being 10/09) the only order so far is the denial of the motion for TRO below:

August 22, 2008 4 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINITFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DOC. NO. 2) AND AFTER HAVING A HEARING IN OPEN COURT IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 8/22/08. 8/22/08 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED FROM CHAMBERS. (jpd) (Entered: August 22, 2008)

___________________________

It is my belief that besides the routine denial of the restraining order nothing else has been ordered by the court to date.

Here's a link for someone who made the mistake then apologized.

Here's the same mistake with the second poster setting the first one straight on his boo boo.

And, one more.

Judge Orders Obama to Produce Birth Certificate

08 Oct

Posted by MacRanger as 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Election 2008

Hmmmmm…

” This article is a rewrite of last week’s article on Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit to force Barack Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate. On Sept. 24 the DNC filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action, which sent Berg scrambling to file a response, which was filed on Sept. 29, providing the date and material which led to my confusion that the order had been signed. Accept my mea culpas. The moment I realized the error I called News With Views and had the article pulled, and posted a recant on my website as well. Here is the most current information on the case, taken from court documents. — Jon Christian Ryter

On September 29, 2008 Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, filed a response to a motion to dismiss by defendant Barack Obama who was joined in his effort to quash Berg’s lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee, claiming it has no standing to proceed. Berg argued in the brief response that he has provided the precedents which establish the standing and petitioned US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pursue the case. In his Sept. 29 filing, Berg said: “Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama’s eligibility through subpoenas to the government entities and the hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiffs and two of (2) the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoenas.

“For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery (the unsigned order requiring Obama to produce…” within three (3) days{

The judge ordered, “Having reviewed the motion and plaintiff’s opposition to said motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is denied. It is further order of this court that the following discovery is to be turned over to plaintiff within three (3) days.

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version) birth certificate; and 2. a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; 3. a certified copy of Obama’s oath of allegiance.”

The certified copy of the citizen of the world’s “oath of allegiance” to the United Sates is a document attesting to the fact that the newly “naturalized” citizen (usually an immigrant who has just been granted citizenship) or for native born Americans who have forfeited or otherwise surrendered their citizenship, and have requested reinstatement at their majority, usually 18, has sworn allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.”

October surprise? 10 Responses

1.

Larry Sheldon

October 8th, 2008 at 9:41 am 1

I have not bothered to check it again this morning, but for every previous time I have seen this, I have checked, and found:

The only evidence for this “order” is the draft of the desired order in Berg’s filing.

I have not found court records of a signed and recorded order.

There is enough wrong with Obama in the stuff Obama has said in recent times. We don’t need this crap that is so easy to shoot down. 2.

clarice

October 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am 2

DITTO–This is the Lie that will not die! 3.

Larry Sheldon

October 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am 3

Just by way of comparison, here is what ab order looks like.

Note date, signature, and absence of other matrerial in the PDF 4.

Larry Sheldon

October 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am 4

Ooops. (He forgot the link)

link

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-10-15   0:13:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And, according to the docket (with it's latest entry being 10/09) the only order so far is the denial of the motion for TRO below:

No, the latest entry on 10/09 (which it seems you've not read yet) is in fact the Judge's Order denying Obama's move to stay discovery, and Obama is Ordered to answer Berg's discovery requests and produce documents by Oct 15th (tomorrow).

The Judge has deferred his decision on Obama's motion to dismiss, pending the discovery which the Judge ordered. i.e. the Judge might yet dismiss if the results of discovery warrant it, or the Judge might proceed to trial if discovery (or lack thereof) demonstrates Berg's case has merit.

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-15   0:37:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well great!

But I have to ask.

If it hasn't been posted to the docket yet, then, you know this HOW?

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-10-15   0:47:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If it hasn't been posted to the docket yet, then, you know this HOW?

Because it has been posted to the docket, doc #18 on 10/9/08

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-15   0:49:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Because it has been posted to the docket, doc #18 on 10/9/08

Entry # 18 is Berg's response to Obama's and the DNC's motion for protective order. (entry 15)

Does your docket entry 18 differ from this one?

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-10-15   0:57:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#89. To: HOUNDDAWG (#87)

Entry # 18 is Berg's response to Obama's and the DNC's motion for protective order. (entry 15)

Not entirely. Doc #18 is the Judge's order and also attaches Berg's response

Read the order and stop assuming.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/ district-courts/pennsylvania/ paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/18/0.pdf

Starwind  posted on  2008-10-15 01:04:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]