“Discovery hearing re. Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.

08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ONMOTIONS: (See document for
details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

Notice:
This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”

Dude, I disagree with your assumptions, and despite all the crap you keep throwing on the wall, they are still just your assumptions.

Whatever would lead you to believe they are “assumptions?” I guess that you have not read any of the actual documents filed in court by the defendants’ lawyers. You should take some time off and do that. Then you will no longer be under so many mistaken impressions.

As to the courts and general legal issues, what could be more important than actually providing proof that you are in fact eligible, which he has not done. He has given nothing that will actually provide that proof, and please don’t throw that factcheck thingy out here again.

And with those two sentences you prove beyond doubt that you would not benefit from any additional “proof” since you already have rejected what is, by law, absolute legal proof of his eligibility.

Run away from the “factcheck thingy” all you want. But recognize that by doing so you are only demonstrating that you really don’t care about proof of his eligibility one bit. You’ve had it for more than a year.

You are correct in your statement that “he” has nothing to gain by releasing his bc. However he has much to lose while we the people have much to gain. Never in my lifetime has there ever been a need to question a candidate so thoroughly as this one.

Why? What makes this one different? Hmmmmmmmmm?

Nobody has ever had to question a candidates loyalty to the United States of America before this man.

Nobody has to question Obama’s loyalty either. people question it because they choose to. What about him is different that would make you question his loyalty?

Your support for him notwithstanding, please explain where in the past this country has had to deal with the constitutional question of eligibility such as this man’s eligibility, or lack thereof.

Never. And not now, either.

And which precedent was it that gives this man a free ride as to providing said proof of eligibility?

Well… that’s a whole ‘nother question, isn’t it?

Had he followed the precedent of every single Presidential candidate prior to him, he wouldn’t have shown you the COLB either. He has provided more prrof of eligibility than any other president in all of United States history.

And your next to the last sentence is partly correct, partly opinion. Please quit trying to put out opinions as fact. I will give you age and 14 years, but it is simply your personal opinion that he is a natural born citizen. He will not even make that statement. He claims “native” citizenship, probably from that constitutional scholar gig, which he should know is not the same as a natural born citizen, your opinion to the contrary.

Listen to yourself and think for just a moment. You are asserting that he is too careful as a “constitutional scholar” to ever say he is “natural born citizen,” but not so careful that he won’t run for President of the United States? What do you imagine his thinking would be here?

“Oh, sure, I’ll fraudulently run for POTUS as a natural born citizen, but I’ll never actually say I’m one, because, gosh, that would be wrong!”

You guys grasp for the most pathetic of straws in the face of the simple fact that all the evidence is against you, no court will accept your silly cases, nobody in government or the main stream media takes you seriously, and even your own lawyers are suing each other.

And finally throwing snide remarks around about me and others who believe an injustice has occured only makes you look silly, not the other way around.

I do not know how old you are, AA. But someday you will be old enough to realize that when one’s position is ridiculous, you should expect ridicule. If you think I look silly, good for you. I hope you would take that as the one small victory you will ever have as a Birther.

Because I have also been correct in every prediction I have ever made concerning every decision made in every court regarding the Birther movement so far. If you go back and read some of my old debates with Phil on the Constitutionality of the “citizen’s grand juries” for example, you will see that I could have written Judge Lamberth’s recent slam dunk of them myself.

I’d rather look silly and be right than be a dignified looking loser.

How about you?

I have profound respect for the rule of law.

…except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.

It is bad enough when your lies are subtle. Now you’re not even trying. You know full well that I never said I’m okay “that eligibility is not enforced.”

You really need to work harder to remember the questions you asked.

You’ve long since formed your opinion and apparently you’re foolish enough to think that somehow folks like me are going to be convinced by folks like you to stop questioning.

Ah, no, I never said that I expect to convince you. As I’ve explained, I like to put the debunk as close as possible to the bunk.

The questions were answered long ago, and you guys are only fooling yourselves.

Who’s the bigger fool — the one who is promulgating controversial questions or the one foolish enough to think they can derail the questioning?

I’m not surprised by your personal accusations against me. You’ve long since formed your opinion and apparently you’re foolish enough to think that somehow folks like me are going to be convinced by folks like you to stop questioning.

Nevertheless, as I always say, it’s your prerogative to think and believe as you will.

-Phil

Brygenon, you all need to quit throwing out this canard of nobody checking Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton’s birth certificates. Chester Arthur was the only other candidate who had a British father, therefore none of the other candidates posed a problem for the voters of this country as pertains to eligibility.

If you’re just relying on ordinary biographical sources to tell you about Ronald Reagan, then look up Obama’s bio and we’re done.

If that’s not enough, how do you really know who Ronald Reagan’s parents were? Did you see the official legal records? How can you be certain that Nelle Reagan didn’t take a secret trip to Kenya in 1911, to have baby Ronald there?

brygenon [wrote],

we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President.

Hate? I didn’t know that questioning a President’s eligibility is synonymous with hate.

The questions were answered long ago, and you guys are only fooling yourselves.

Phil, you featured an article trying to argue that President Obama has narcissistic personality disorder. No-Drama Obama, renowned for his even temperament, suffers from NPD? Really? The President of the United States thinks he’s a lot more important than he is? People see right through it, so you might as well just call him uppity.

Earlier today you told HistorianDude, “Don’t be so ugly in the future on my site.” Wow. Comments comparing President Obama to Hitler, claiming his he’s a Muslim terrorists, or lamenting how, “The Blacks now have the power from Hussein down to Holder etc.” — those you approve without any such note. It’s HistorianDude’s arguments that you find ugly.

I have profound respect for the rule of law.

…except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.

-Phil

we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President.

Hate? I didn’t know that questioning a President’s eligibility is synonymous with hate.

Perhaps you could push back from the keyboard for a few moments, let go of some of your over-the-top bias, and realize that some of us have legitimate questions.

-Phil

And, yet, you absolutely insist upon typing my site’s domain name into your favorite web browser and continually take the time to actually make comments on my postings.

Perhaps you need a more modern web browser. I haven’t typed your domain name in months.

That said… I note again that rather than address the subject you once more try to change subjects. You know Phil… if you have no response, perhaps you would be better served by not responding.

Of course. Yet, the fact that eligibility cases, to date, have been dismissed is not synonymous with their being conspiracy theories.

And you are the only one in this thread who ever said they were.

Nice attack, Phil. Wrong hill.

Also, regarding the concept that the eligibility question is a conspiracy theory. I simply fail to see how background documentation that, being unsealed, would show exactly who the President is should somehow be construed as conspiratorial.

When I corrected Sharon 2 on this weird confusion you Birthers seem to have on what a “conspiracy theory” is, I assumed (wrongly it appears) that your silence meant you did not share it. But now we see that you have no idea what a “conspiracy theory” even is.

A conspiracy theory is any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a “secret team” or “shadow government.” The Birther narrative is a conspiracy theory that tries to explain Obama’s presidency as the result of a secret plot… in many versions going all the way back to Obama’s grandparents decades before he was even born. You guys routinely include as members of the conspiracy almost every member of Congress, the judicial system, most organs of government to include the Justice Department, the SSS, the Republicans, the governments of multiple nations, even innocent hard working staffers in the Hawaii Department of Health.

Releasing the documentation would not be “conspiratorial.” But your insistence that they are “sealed” is full blown conspiracy theory hoo-hah.

If anything, the fact that folks such as yourself have a real issue with examining this President’s unreleased background documentation certainly gives credence to the argument that there is something to hide.

Spoken exactly like the died-in-the-wool, paranoid, irrational conspiracy theorist you appear to be.