Friday, February 13, 2009

Where's the Proof Barry?

WorldNet Daily is reporting that attorneys representing Obama in his effort to conceal his birth certificate, college records, and passport documents threatened "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. Since Obama's inauguration, their case has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of his records.

In the case, handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, records were subpoenaed documenting Obama's attendance at Occidental College.

The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.

"In order to avoid the needless expense of our bringing and litigating a Motion to Quash the subpoena, I am writing to ask whether you would be willing to agree voluntarily to cancel or withdraw the subpoena."

Woocher warned, "Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures."

Kreep, out of town for a business trip, did not respond immediately, and the motion eventually was filed. It states that the records, which could reveal on what name Obama attended classes at Occidental and whether he attended on scholarship money intended for foreign students, "are of no relevance to this moot litigation."

The motion also claims the petitioners failed to serve the subpoena properly.

"The subpoena directed to Occidental College should therefore be quashed. Alternatively, this court should issue an order directing that the deposition of the custodian of records of Occidental College not take place," the firm working on Obama's behalf stated.

"The central issue in this lawsuit … is whether any Respondent had a legal duty to demand proof of natural born citizenship from Democratic Party's nominee," the motion said. "None of the documents sought by petitioners could possibly assist in answering this question."

The motion then cited a precedent from a case involving a "former law firm client who brought malpractice action against firm claiming unconscionable rates was not entitled to discovery regarding amount paid by law firm to contract staff attorney because such information is irrelevant to unconscionability claim."