Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: manonCANAL
hm?....I am not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable that she should have access to the evidence she needs to defend her reputation. Those records would all those documents surrounding Obama’s eligibility.
69 posted on 10/13/2009 8:26:46 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: wintertime

I’m not a lawyer either but I think the Rules regarding a sanction and any requirement of discovery would not obtain here. She had a hearing, she had the opportunity to appear in the judge’s court, and to file documents explaining her position. She would only be afforded the discovery she seeks, as far as I understand it, if the judge sanctioned her without affording her the opportunies that he did to make her case, and she failed. Before going further she should pay up the $20K and be done with it in this court. This is not going to help one iota in CA, either, nor does it advance the goal of obtaining the information so many would like produced. I’d put any hope for that document production in one of the other, quieter, cases that are making their way thru the courts.


88 posted on 10/13/2009 8:42:33 AM PDT by EDINVA (Obama CAN'T see the Olympics from his back porch !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: wintertime
"I am not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable that she should have access to the evidence she needs to defend her reputation. Those records would all those documents surrounding Obama’s eligibility."

No. Obama's records have nothing to do with defending herself against the fine. That's based on her own conduct, not her legal argument about Obama.

89 posted on 10/13/2009 8:42:39 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson