SCOTUS petitioned for writ certiorari in Obama citizenship case, Obama to respond by Dec 1

The facts in the original Berg case tell the story. Obama and the DNC filed multiple extensions. This is an act done buy a guilty party as the longer the case is delayed the greater the chance it will be dismissed.

It was also done in theO.J. Simpson cases and the Michael Jackson case. Although in those the Guilt was obvious they slid out the door to avoid riots. Now there will be riots either way.

Just watch. OBAMA and the DNC will reply to SCOTUS at the last minute to request a delay, like any other criminal would.



[edit on 12-11-2008 by Illahee]

reply to post by Illahee


Good try comparing Obama to Michael Jackson and OJ. Not buying it.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Illahee

 

Good try comparing Obama to Michael Jackson and OJ. Not buying it.

Doesn't matter if you're buying it or not mick, what he is saying is true and no one is seeking your approval about it

reply to post by MAINTAL


Like I said on the other thread:

Show me some evidence MAINTAL, then I'll listen. I don't listen to posts full of accusations backed by nothing.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Like I said on the other thread:

Show me some evidence MAINTAL, then I'll listen. I don't listen to posts full of accusations backed by nothing.

Mick, it is OBVIOUS he is futurizing here when he says " Just watch. OBAMA and the DNC will reply to SCOTUS at the last minute to request a delay, like any other criminal would. "

So we will just have to wait and see but if what he is saying about OJ and MJ is true, that I CAN prove because they have done it before

Obama & DNC file motion to delay discovery until after defendants motion to dismiss is decided

www.obamacrimes.com...

Senator Obama and the DNC file for dismissal of Berg vs. Obama

www.obamacrimes.com...

I really don't know what else to tell you or even if that is what you're talking about






[edit on 12-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by dreams n chains

i think you are right so then what ?do we let the nation fall anyway

There's no point at all in Obama showing his birth certificate just to make the whiners here happy.
You'd only insist it was a forgery and that he's paid people to say it's real anyway.
If a judge finds in his favour you'll hate the judge and want a retrial.
When that doesn't work you'll find a new con-artist propagating a new rumour and jam up the air-waves with that.


In the Australian bush, we're woken every morning by an hour-long cacophony of cockatoos. They remind me of the posters pushing these threads, lots of noise that amounts to nothing.

However the cockatoos do it for free.

reply to post by beforetime

Obama's USA citizenship or lack thereof will be addressed by the Supreme Court soon after December 1. I sincerely think the "Rule of Four" will grant the Cert and the Supreme Court will resolve Obama's citizenship status before the end of the year. As a retired lawyer, it would appear Obama has a MAJOR problem on his hands. Obama...I wouldn't just yet be hiring any moving vans...

reply to post by MAINTAL


So... now following the basic guidelines of trial procedures make someone guilty?

Do we need to review them?

Motions

* Motion to Discover. A motion by which one party seeks to gain information from the adverse party.

* Motion to Dismiss. This motion asks the court to dismiss the suit because the suit doesn’t have a legally sound basis, even if all the facts alleged are proven true.

* Motion for Summary Judgment (sometimes called motion for summary disposition). This motion asks the court for a judgment on the merits of the case before the trial. It is properly made where there is no dispute about the facts and only a question of law needs to be decided.

Obama's lawyers filed for a motion to dismiss and Berg filed for a motion to expedite discovery. These both happen at the same stage in the trial.

Obama's motion won, the case was dismissed, therefore the trial never made it to the discovery phase. This is how the court system works.

Big difference between Obama, MJ, and OJ? There was actual evidence to take it to court.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


I agree. Looking at the Supreme Court website, that numerous people have referenced, all I see is that the motion has been Denied by Justice Souter.

No where on the Supreme Court website, or anywhere besides obamacrimes, can I find anything on this motion that Obama needs to how his birth certificate Dec. 1.

I think this entire thread is one big hoax. I have a feeling that this Berg guy is writing a Corsi type book, and all of this is his version of publicity.

Either way, I would like to see some other references besides Berg's ObamaCrimes stating that this is going forward.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


M1ck, let me just say, that I admire your attention to truth and detail.

Keep up the good work

So what would be the harm in his allowing us to see it then?

This I don't understand, unless he is hiding something I just can't understand what the big deal is.

reply to post by MAINTAL


Wow. What's the harm in me seeing yours? Post up your full, "vaulted BC". I won't take anything less as acceptable.

Once you realize how dumb of an idea that is, then we can start talking about how he showed it to the State Department.

reply to post by MAINTAL


Do you need to see the real, physical piece of paper, in your own hands?

Or is this not enough for you?:
fightthesmears.com...

I honestly thought that all this was settled months ago.
Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter

And there’s the rub. It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible.

But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over.

There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact’s conclusion that the candidate’s name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic.

And that’s true no matter how many people cling to some hint of doubt and use the Internet to fuel their innate sense of distrust.

I guess some people really do need to see an actual copy of Obama's Birth Certificate in their hands.

DocMoreau

IT would be crazy if he was not a citizens....... The libs would all go nuts saying that it should not matter and the conservatives would have a feld day (which would be me). Sad;y, even if he is not American born, then it would be covered up anyway and we would never know. It would go on as a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Wow. What's the harm in me seeing yours? Post up your full, "vaulted BC". I won't take anything less as acceptable.

Once you realize how dumb of an idea that is, then we can start talking about how he showed it to the State Department.

I'm sorry, but why is it so dumb when what is allegedly on it is the same as what is on the COLB? What could possibly be discovered save for a set of inked footprints ? Why has it been done by past presidents without your rebuke towards them for being so dumb?

You asking for mine is rather curious when you tell me you won't settle for anything less than my vaulted record when that is exactly what we are asking for also. But you see my Job isn't the one contingent on my being born in the United States, Obama's is. He says he is and if it's good enough to put into original words from his own mouth then it is good enough to put into original writing from the original document which is the one we have yet to see as proof.

reply to post by MAINTAL


Seriously?

If the information is the same, then why won't you accept the COLB that he has provided? That has been verified openly by both State Departments and independent review.

But, no. That wasn't enough. The COLB wasn't enough (even though you claim it's no different from the Vaulted Copy), you need the original now.

I don't want your birth certificate, I just think that if you are insisting on someone posting their birth certificate, that the least you can do is do it yourself.

He has been cleared and verified as a natural born US citizen by the Hawaiian State Department of Health... why is that not good enough?

reply to post by DocMoreau


I don't have to see it in my hands, it is that he refuses to show it that I have a problem with. It is that he actuall had an excuse NOT to wear a flag pin ever that I had a problem with, it is that he actually had a reason he wouldn't place his hand on his heart I had a problem with.

Reasons like "I just didn't have pin" or I just forgot to put my hand on my heart and face the flag are something I'd expect from you and I but not from a United States Senator. His reasons were more telling than that however. This is the same thing, he gives no reasons for NOT showing us other than to stonewall and that makes me very curious especially when what is on it is supposedly the exact same thing as the COLB.

The only difference is the COLB could very well be differen't than the original vaulted BC which gives motive to his reasons for keeping it from us the American People

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Seriously?

If the information is the same, then why won't you accept the COLB that he has provided? That has been verified openly by both State Departments and independent review.

But, no. That wasn't enough. The COLB wasn't enough (even though you claim it's no different from the Vaulted Copy), you need the original now.

I don't want your birth certificate, I just think that if you are insisting on someone posting their birth certificate, that the least you can do is do it yourself.

He has been cleared and verified as a natural born US citizen by the Hawaiian State Department of Health... why is that not good enough?

This is no differen't then when a cop doesn't settle for an alibi they check it out anyway and I see this no differen't and want to check it out anyway.

I expect they SHOULD be the same but you were the one asking and I am saying the only reason he wouldn't want to show it if they are supposed to be the same is if THEY WEREN'T and his not showing it gives me reason to think he is hiding something.

reply to post by MAINTAL


I think my head is going to explode.

These conversations just keep going around in circles. You start at point A, I refute it. You jump to point B, I refute it, then we just end back up at point A.

He didn't have to show it because the trial never got that far. And as far as I am aware, he may have shown it to the Hawaiian State Department of Health, as well as others.

So, while you may not have seen it, others may have. What you can be sure of is that the Hawaiian government has vouched for his legitimacy and that unless Berg's new trial goes somewhere, Obama isn't obligated to show you anything.

In fact, even if Berg's case does proceed, Obama still won't be obligated to show you anything. So, if the new case gets to discovery, Obama pulls out the BC, the court verifies it, and dismisses the case... what then? Will you still be asking Obama to see it personally?

I just don't understand how people can be so egocentric. The world doesn't revolve around you or anyone else who thinks they have privy to that document.


In fact, MAINTAL, it would be my pleasure to formally debate with you about the subject in the debate forum. Would you care to have a go round there? Not sure if you've ever taken a part in it, but I need to get my feet wet there again.

Here's the link: Debate Forum

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]