Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I purposely ignored this thread today, as it deserves to scroll off with no replys and because truegritt posted the same copy/paste in other threads. But since it's being discussed...
WND is lying about what was said in emails between Kreep and Woocher. Woocher did not ask for sanctions or attorney fees and costs, which are rightfully due. The Motion to Quash will be granted for the very reasons I stated back when truegritt first posted the subpoena. Mainly that the subpoena is invalid because Kreep didn't follow the Rules of Procedure and serve Obama notice at least 5 days before serving the school. 10 if service is by mail. It's also improper and premature to attempt discovery when there are 3 challenges to the pleading waiting to be heard. Woocher was kind enough to give Kreep the chance to withdraw the subpoena until such time that it was proper, sparing Kreep the court's wrath for his misusing the discovery process, but Kreep insisted on proceeding. Can't wait to read what the judge says when he grants the Motion to Quash.
You are correct about FERPA. If Obama's attorney hadn't found out about the subpoena, the school would have refused to comply, citing FERPA. Then Kreep would have to get a court order. The judge would never grant one because the school records have nothing to do with the suit against Bowen.
Great quote from the Motion to Quash ......"this utterly moot litigation." I noticed a hearing date on the front page, but will have to look at it again. I am wondering if the Court's ruling will be posted later. LOL
I wouldn't think people would have to go to law school to know enough about "service" to properly serve these kinds of things! Philip Berg also had a problem with properly and timely serving folks when he filed his little lawsuit in fed. court in PA.
Austin, I have said many times what it would take and under what conditions.
For any authority like the SCOTUS, FBI, CIA, DHS, not FACTCHECK, or Snopes to be able to look at the documents in question. I would then be more than happy to live with whatever conclusion they come to.
The way Obama is running the country right now, I may not have to wait for that to happen.
TRUEGRITT
Your poll on the merits of this stuff is consistently running 75-80% against continuing discussion of his eligibility and 20-25% in favor of continuing. What is your perception of this?
Great quote from the Motion to Quash ......"this utterly moot litigation." I noticed a hearing date on the front page, but will have to look at it again. I am wondering if the Court's ruling will be posted later. LOL
I wouldn't think people would have to go to law school to know enough about "service" to properly serve these kinds of things! Philip Berg also had a problem with properly and timely serving folks when he filed his little lawsuit in fed. court in PA.
The other interesting thing is that if you read the defense motion, it is clear that the plantiff's have no expectation of prevailing:
"Since filing suit nearly three months ago, Petitioners have made no effort whatsoever to obtain interlocutory relief. "
In short they simply filed the law suit, never asked for injunctive relief and have just playing the suckers like Seektruth by stringing them alone with psuedo legal news.
The other interesting thing is that if you read the defense motion, it is clear that the plantiff's have no expectation of prevailing:
"Since filing suit nearly three months ago, Petitioners have made no effort whatsoever to obtain interlocutory relief. "
In short they simply filed the law suit, never asked for injunctive relief and have just playing the suckers like Seektruth by stringing them alone with psuedo legal news.
Ahhhh. All the better to help people part with their money ...... please click on "donations" button.
Your poll on the merits of this stuff is consistently running 75-80% against continuing discussion of his eligibility and 20-25% in favor of continuing. What is your perception of this?
I think if you stretch it out to 170 million registered voters there are anywhere from 34 to 43 million people who believe that Obama's eligibility has merit and that is not a few "nutjobs". It has a long way to go but if it stays under 25% I will keep my word.
Well, judging from the poll the eligibility issue has no merit....can we now forget it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
......"this utterly moot litigation." I noticed a hearing date on the front page, but will have to look at it again. I am wondering if the Court's ruling will be posted later. LOL 
