Berg Response to Defense Motion for Protective Order, Jeff Schreiber explanation, October 9, 2008, Obama’s citizenship, constitutional requirements for the presidency, Obama campaign donations

Philip J Berg filed a motion in federal court today, Thursday, October 9, 2008 to dismiss the motion from Obama and the DNC to stay discovery until after the judge rules on a defense motion to dismiss. Jeff Schreiber, a law student, legal writer and blog owner has provided an explanation of Mr. Berg’s motion. Here are some exerpts:

“This morning, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg filed a response in opposition to the motion for protective order, a measure intended to stay discovery until after the judge rules on a defense motion to dismiss, filed by Barack Obama and the DNC on Monday.

In the response Berg insists, among other things, that he is not seeking the documents specified in his motion for expedited discovery for any improper purpose, that the information requested through discovery is of extreme importance and a matter of public safety, and argues that Barack Obama and the DNC

  • have not pointed to any “legitimate privacy concerns.”
  • have not pointed out any “substantiated specific examples” showing that disclosure of the information requested through discovery would “cause and defined and serious injury.”
  • have not effectively demonstrated “any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result” from turning over the requested documents.
  • have failed to show “good cause” and are not entitled to a protective order.

On the latter, Berg cites a 1994 decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals–the appellate court sitting here in Philadelphia and the natural next step in this case should the losing party in District Court choose to appeal–in which the court held that “good cause” exists when the moving party can specifically demonstrate “that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury” based upon a seven-factor test:

  1. Whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
  2. Whether the information is sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose;
  3. Whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment;
  4. Whether confidentiality is sought over information important to public health and safety;
  5. Whether sharing information among the litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;
  6. Whether a party who would benefit from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and
  7. Whether the case involves issues important to the public.”

Read more of the article here:

Help Philip J Berg keep Obama accountable:

Show your outrage here:

Related News

  • Trump “I didn’t need to do this” spoken in context of election and building the wall, He didn’t need to do to get reelected, Faster for nation’s security
  • “Hillary Clinton is Evil Incarnate” David Schippers Free Republic radio April 2002, Chief counsel of impeachment of Bill Clinton
  • Schippers Exposes Impeachment Debacle, David Schippers interview by Insight Magazine December 8, 2000, Democrat Schippers book Sellout
  • Rosemary Jenks testimony April 30, 1997 before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, Judiciary committee of the US House of Representatives
  • Starr says Clinton ‘chose deception’, Clinton lied under oath obstructed justice and attempted to thwart not just Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit but Starr’s grand jury probe as well, House Judiciary Committee, CNN November 18, 1998
  • Judicial Watch finds pattern of lying by Clinton allies, Stephanopoulos sanctioned, Carville rebuked by court, Stephanopoulos warned on national TV of “Ellen Rometsch strategy” by “White House allies” to “bring down” perceived adversaries of Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch August 20, 1998
  • The Podesta cover-up, Top Clinton aide fighting impeachment, Implicated in cover-up of sale of Clinton Commerce trade mission seats for campaign contributions, Nolanda Hill testified in sworn affidavit and in open court, Judicial Watch September 23, 1998
  • Why is Clinton White House afraid of Dolly Kyle Browning?, Paula Jones witness prepared to testify in senate trial, Browning can testify to Clinton perjury threats and obstruction of justice, Judicial Watch January 11, 1999
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *