Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (279629)	11/9/2008 10:05:08 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

Fantastic! Lets start things off with a constitutional crisis to go along with the coming international ones.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (279629)	11/9/2008 12:07:40 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 793838

Any takers on odds?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (279629)	11/9/2008 1:20:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

I don't get this whole birth certificate thing. Wouldn't Obama be legal even if he were born in Kenya, since his mother was American? What could be on there? Probably it was just something embarrasing, like his folks not being married.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (279629)	11/9/2008 3:21:04 PM
From: LindyBill	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793838

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution. I sincerely hope that the only problem with his BC is embarrassment for him. If he's not a citizen, God help us!

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (279629)	11/9/2008 4:13:04 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 793838

I was beginning to think it was a hoax when I found very little press coverage on line through MSM. I found this statement on line by Mr. Berg: obamacrimes.com I'd love to know which four justices concurred...would love to see the order. Am also wondering what action can be taken, and by whom, if President Elect Barack Obama does not produce his original Birth Certificate on or before Dec 1? obamacrimes.com Edit: further reading.......something doesn't seem right. The question of his place of birth is the over riding question, but I'm reading on some blogs things like this: Souter Tells Obama to produce birth certificate by Dec. 1 (Posted on 11/8 at 6:30 a.m. to Afreaux) Well, last time I checked, it wasn't mandatory to respond to a writ application at all, unless the Court required you to respond. You are automatically given an allotted time to respond when an app. is filed, and you can do so, but don't have to. You can also fill out a form which advises the Court you intend not to respond, which expedites the process. If I were Obama's camp, I probably would do nothing, as there is a 99.9% chance the writ will be denied. There appears to be no "Order" requiring Obama's camp to produce discovery. The only "issue" the Court would be looking at would be "standing", so discovery doesn't have anything to do with it. Right now, Berg's suit is dismissed. Thus, no obligation to respond to discovery. Whoever wrote this blog doesn't have a clue about the law imho. I suppose Obama's team could respond if they felt that Berg's claim had a chance, but this would simply be an argument regarding standing of an individual to challenge the nationalism of a candidate for President. tigerdroppings.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (279629)	11/9/2008 5:13:29 PM
From: didjuneau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

Sounds like there is a court rule that is being applied - a technicality. The lack of a response to the Request for Admissions within 30 days constitutes a legal admission of the statements that were to be admitted by default if not refuted. Even though Judge Surrick eventually did dismiss the case on the lack of standing, he had granted this order deeming the requests for admissions to be admitted, and the time did expire on the response, if I'm reading this right. It looks like the Supreme Court has decided that they have standing, and would like to know for themselves what's behind the lack of response to the initial request and/or Judge Surrick's decision. The new expiration date of Dec. 1 means that the clock has been restarted, but I think it's ticking on the Surrick court more than the Obama camp this time around. I think that the representation that Obama needs to come up with some documents is wrong. That could eventually come up again, but when I looked up "Writ of Certiorari", the definition itself looks like it must apply to the lower court.