On Oct 5, 12:07 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 5, 8:12 am, "[ Republican forObama]" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > mark you know none of that is true ! even snopes says it false . > > Snopes does not addressObama'sMotion-to-Dismiss (denied), norBerg's > amended September 29 filing. Not to mention the court order thatObama > produce the relevant documents. > > Snopes took a shot... and missed.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the matter. The court has NOT RULED on Obama's motion to dismiss, nor has the court ordered Obama to produce the relevant documents. If you notice, the judge has NOT signed Berg's suggested order. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/5yljet --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
