4:45 p.m. — Obama, DNC File Motion for Leave to File Protective Order (Phil Berg v Barack Obama) Updated

by

http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/berg-v-obama-update-monday-october-6.html

I’ll pretty it up and explain things a little bit better later on this evening, but here’s what’s going on, so far and in brief:

As I was talking with one of my contacts at the courthouse about this motion, my phone rings and it is Philip Berg. He’s fired up. 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.”

Until I have time to get into this more specifically, here’s the rub:

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 attorneys for Obama and the DNC, however, just filed a motion asking for 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.”

Just like with the amended complaint, an attorney cannot simply file a protective order but must file a motion for leave to file, essentially asking the judge if it is okay for the pleading to be filed. Make sense so far? That’s what this is — defense attorney John LaVelle filed such a motion this afternoon, a motion asking to file 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. 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. Still, even knowing the rules, I will admit that my first reaction was one of suspicion.

As for Philip Berg, while he and I will chat later on, here’s a snippet of what he had to say in our brief conversation:

“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.”

Update:

TWO FILINGS: Berg Files Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Obama and DNC File Motion to Delay Discovery Until Judge Decides on Prior Motion to Dismiss

It was a busy day in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania today. First, attorney Philip Berg files a motion asking the court to permit him to file an amended complaint with several additions, and then next, attorneys for Barack Obama and the DNC file a motion asking the court for a protective order, essentially asking that the judge rule on their motion to dismiss for lack of standing before ruling on Berg’s motion for expedited discovery.

Bear with me, here. Geez, I wish I could just do this for a full-time job — it would be so much easier without all this other stuff (work, school, etc.) in the way!

Keep checking back. Due to the amount of information, I may split this up into two separate posts. We’ll see.

— Jeff

Question for Jeff Schreiber:

I am very grateful that you’ve lent your time and your expertise to this matter.

I wonder if you are familiar with the role that Techdude played in this story.

And you can see from what I’ve copied here continues to play.

If Mr. Berg is continuing to rely on Techdude’s analysis, perhaps that’s not a good thing.

I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of this for a while now, to no avail.

Anyway, just wondering if you had a thought or two on the matter.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096690/posts

To: Peerless

Did you bother to tell Berg that Techdude was a fraud?

Ya think?

Everything you quoted is ancient history and nowhere to be found in Berg’s amended complaint, or on his website.

Try reading a current copy this time. Here’s a link for you:

Berg’s Amended Complaint

There’s nothing in there related to TechDude’s work.

188 posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 1:40:04 PM by Polarik

To: Polarik

Everything you quoted is ancient history and nowhere to be found in Berg’s amended complaint, or on his website.

Try reading a current copy this time. Here’s a link for you:

I’m araid you are the one here who needs to get current.

What you posted here is Berg’s response to Obama’s and the DNC’s motion to dismiss.

What I’m talking about is Berg’s amended complaint. Which was filed today. And which Berg has yet to post on his website.

Here:

berg-amended-complaint.pdf

And if I may draw your attention to page 48, in paragraph 135 you will find the following:

Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970.

This is not “ancient history.” This comes straight from Berg’s amended complaint which was filed today, October 6, 2008.

So the question still stands.

How is Berg going to defend this claim when you are on record saying Techdude was a fraud who fabricated his evidence and that your claims as to how the COLB was produced are completely at odds with Techdude’s?

189 posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 3:44:19 PM by Peerless

Updated:

To: Sibre Fan

Have you read the law Berg cites? There’s an interesting discussion and – better yet – links to the actual law on this issue, here.

Don’t believe ANYTHING you read on whatsyourevidence.com — this website was by an Obama operative solely to fool others into thinking that Berg’s suit has no merit.

It’s about as valid as his birth certificate.

194 posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 5:52:35 PM by Polarik

To: Sibre Fan

Go visit obamacrimes.com. I’ve relayed to you what Berg’s office has known for some time. Ask them. I’m not a messenger boy.

198 posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 6:42:22 PM by Polarik

To: Peerless

Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970.

Oh, that? It’s a clerical error. It’ll be gone tomorrow.

199 posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 6:47:39 PM by Polarik

To: Peerless

Suuuuuure it is.

And it’s already been filed so it’ll be there tomorrow.

I know that you’re not familiar with how the courts work, so like I told you, go to Berg’s website and get the copy there…not from someone else.

I don’t know where your copy from, but it’s not the same one that he released.

I’ll say it again: go to obamacrimes.com

203 posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 7:26:51 PM by Polarik

Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

4 Responses to “4:45 p.m. — Obama, DNC File Motion for Leave to File Protective Order (Phil Berg v Barack Obama) Updated”

  1. whatsyourevidence Says:

    RosettaSister.
    I know you asked Jeff this question, and believe he’s more than qualified to answer it, but I’m taking a whack at it anyway.

    It APPEARS that Berg’s original complaint relied on Techdude’s analysis. Berg originally cited to Techdude’s analysis on his website, but pulled it down after working with Polarik for a while. (Info on this at http://www.whatsyourevidence.com.)

    Also, Berg’s Assistant has emphatically denied that Techdude is one of their experts. Given that statement, by a Berg representative, it is highly unlikely that they are still relying on Techdude’s analysis. (Info on this at above link.)

    As for the fact that the Amended Complaint still refers to a part of Techdude’s claim, there are at least two possible explanations.

    1). Berg simply made an editing error. He took out the references to “three forensic experts.” But he just may have forgotten that that particular aspect was based on Techdude’s “analysis,” rather than Polarik’s “analysis.” If so, that would just be an honest mistake, that he can easily correct. (That part of the complaint is not “material” to his overall allegations.)

    2). Berg may have another, unnamed expert, who uses a different analysis to come to the same result. It’s possible. If you read through the comments on Berg’s site, you’ll see several statements by Berg’s Assistant, saying something to the effect that they have evidence that they’ve not yet disclosed as they are waiting for the right time.

    Just my two cents :).

  2. rosettasister Says:

    Thanks, whatsyourevidence!

    I really do appreciate your taking the time to comment.

    You may wish to reply to the following as well.

    “Don’t believe ANYTHING you read on whatsyourevidence.com — this website was by an Obama operative solely to fool others into thinking that Berg’s suit has no merit.” Ron Polarik

    Are you really an Obama operative?!

  3. rosettasister Says:

    Polarik’s final word on this matter:

    To: Sibre Fan

    Now that’s a non-answer. But – I was asking you about your allegations, and what info on whatsyourevidence.com about your allegations are inaccurate. Are you no longer defending those claims?

    You were asking what is my source of info on whatsyourevidence.com, and the person with whom you need to speak with is Berg or Berg’s assistant.
    You were the one making the allegations, not me, by saying that their their interpretation of the statutes is correct , and I’m relaying to you what I’ve been told by Berg’s office

    So, unless you’re a lawyer well-versed in Constitutional Law, or even pretending to be one, then don’t ask someone who is not or who dosn’t pass himself as one.

    If Berg’s office tells me that they got it wrong, then I am going to tell you that. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with them. If it were me, I’d want to hear it straight from the source.

    EVERYTHING that Obama and his campaign has done can be called into question. Who are his anonymous donors? What was the extent of his relationships with Ayers, Rezko, Auchi, and Rashid. Where and how did he distribute the $200 million his campaign alleged to have gotten honestly? Why won’t he show his birth certificate? Or his Columbia transcripts, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    I wouldn’t bet the ranch that Obama is going to win this election, let alone have his name still on the ballot.

    And, that’s my personal opinion, and the final word on this matter.

    208 posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:31:04 PM by Polarik

  4. rosettasister Says:

    “WHAT’S YOUR SHYSTER? Unethical Lawyer and Obama Funder created “WHATS YOUR EVIDENCE” website.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2103814/posts

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: