Birth Certificate (Part 4)

Philip Berg filed suit against Obama in late August (prior to the Democratic National Convention) challenging the senator’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States. There have been legal maneuverings to avoid showing the Federal Court his “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate. Read more here.

Here is an update of information on the ongoing birth certificate lawsuit:

The plaintiff has been performing legal acrobatics to get this monkey off it’s back rather than produce the “vault” birth certificate. Currently there is a Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery pending Decision on their Motion to Dismiss by Obama.

Philip Berg has filed a response to the Protective Order Staying Discovery stating nine points on why the defendants’ not entitled to the protective order. Included in the nine points is:

1. Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss does not entitle them to a Protective Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) [hereinafter F.R.C.P. 26(c]; 2. Defendants have failed to show “good cause” and are therefore not entitled to a protective order under F.R.C.P. 26(c); 3. Defendants have not pointed to any legitimate privacy concerns. Defendants have failed to point out any substantiated specific examples demonstrating that disclosure will cause a defined and serious injury; 4. Plaintiff does not seek access to the requested information for any improper purpose; 5. Defendants have not shown any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from the requested documents; 6. The requested information is extremely important for public safety; and “Good Cause” requires a particular need for the protection sought; 7. The sharing of information will promote fairness and efficiency so as not to delay this action; 8. Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The Democratic National Committee is a public entity and is also subject to public scrutiny; and 9. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 is a strong factor in favor of not granting a protective order which would prevent disclosure of such information.

I’ve put the links to my three previous posts regarding the birth certificate below.

Part 1
https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/barry-soetoro/

Part 2
https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/lawsuit/

Part 3
https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/lawsuit3/

Part 5
https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/lawsuit5/

Other posts of interest:
Obama’s record spending YOUR tax dollars on earmarks
 https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/pork/
The Global Poverty Act and YOUR tax dollars
https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/the-global-poverty-act-and-your-tax-dollars
Fundraising lawsuit for illegal contributions
 https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/fundraising/
Jewish group threatened with Obama’s Saul Alinsky tactic
 https://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/rule9/
Coming soon — a page dedicated to a full INDEX of posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: