Obama, DNC File Motion for Protective Order
Today, attorneys for Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a Motion for Protective Order, essentially asking Judge R. Barclay Surrick to issue an order staying discovery until after he decides on the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on September 24. Such protective orders are issued, and are done so to protect the interests of involved parties, namely to avoid embarrassment, undue expense, harassment and more.
The motion had been filed at about 4:45p.m. today and as I was talking with one of my contacts at the courthouse about it, my mobile phone rang. It was Philip Berg … a very fired-up, angry Philip Berg. Apparently, he had just been contacted by John LaVelle, attorney for Barack Obama and the DNC, and asked whether he would “put off discovery until Judge Surrick ruled on the motion to dismiss.”
Basically, the law states that Judge Surrick can order discovery even in the face of a pending dispositive motion such as the motion to dismiss filed on September 24 by Obama and the DNC. In other words, he can order full discovery, limited discovery, or none at all before ruling on the dismissal. The Motion for Protective Order filed by Obama and the DNC, however, asks for the court to issue a protective order stopping “all discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
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.
Just like with the amended complaint, an attorney cannot simply file a protective order but must file a motion for one, essentially asking the court to issue the order. That’s what this is — a motion asking the judge to issue a protective order which would allow for a ruling to come down on the motion to dismiss before the commencement of any discovery.
Obviously the first reaction is “what do they have to hide?” or something along those lines. However, Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides authorization to the court for just such a matter, ostensibly to protect one of the parties from embarrassment or oppression or the like. I’m sure there’s some case law on it as well. In spite of the rules, Berg suspected foul play.
“He’s asking to delay discovery and, Jeff, I’m obviously going to oppose it, ” he said. “This isn’t right. This just isn’t right. By tomorrow, we’ll have a response and put out a press release. The American people should hear about this and, if they do, they should go nuts. It’s time to put up or shut up.”
Obama and the DNC, in the brief supporting today’s Motion for Protective Order, cite the “burdensome discovery” sought by Berg. Berg did in fact submit more than 50 admissions requests to both Obama and the DNC, seeking an admission on everything from “[a]dmit you are an attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law” to “[a]dmit the only time you have been to a hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses” to “[a]dmit you were born in Kenya,” and his request for production of documents seeks everything from Obama’s “vault” copy of his birth certificate to his transcript and records at Occidental College.
Speaking with Berg later this afternoon, he mentioned that he may agree to stay discovery with regard to some of his requests for admissions and documentation, but keep “about 10 of the necessary admissions” and “crucial documentation like his vault birth certificate and oath of allegiance” in play for discovery should it be granted.
“First,” Berg said, “I will object completely, but then we’ll provide Judge Surrick with the option of limited documents and admissions.”
This evening, Berg put out a press release entitled “Country Headed to a Constitutional Crisis.” Here it is:
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/06/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss they filed on 09/24/08.
While legal, Berg stated he is “outraged as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President.” The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President.
It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.
Furthermore, and actually more important is Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship that he received when he returned from Indonesia, as if it exists it would indicate that Obama was “naturalized” and also not able to be President.
The DNC has promised “we the people” an Open and Honest Government and has promised to uphold our United States Constitution. The DNC has failed their promise. DNC Chairperson Howard Dean should resign as he has not and is not fulfilling his responsibility of seeing that a “qualified” candidate is on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
A response to the Motion for Protective Order should be expected, Berg said, within the next day or two. I have a hunch that the next few days will bring an order of some sort from Judge Surrick. With the three open motions now pending, perhaps he will address all of them at once.
Read Complete Ariticle
Obama’s campaign is shameful. The Media’s behavior is shameful. Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations? Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act?
Tags: Abuse of Process, Berg v Obama, Bernradine Dorn, Biden, Censorship, Chicago Politics, Democrats, DNC, Drugs, Larry Sinclair, Limo Sex, McCain, Michael Pfleger, Obama, Obama endangers U.S. Military, Obama smearing, Obama Thugs, Palin, Pentagon, Privacy, Republicans, Respect, RNC, Sex, Smears, Trinity United Church Of Christ, Truth
The BOPAC Report & Larry Sinclair's Allegations 
Leave a Reply