Skip to comments.Answers To Complaint Due Dates [Berg v. Obama Certifigate Lawsuit]
Posted on 09/16/2008 1:45:32 PM PDT by Dajjal
Answers to complaint due dates
Thursday, 11 September 2008 01:42 administrator
Berg v. Obama, et al. Civil Case No. 08-cv-04083
Answers are due from the various parties to the lawsuit as follows:
Barrack Obama September 24, 2008;
DNC: September 24, 2008 and
FEC: October 21, 2008 (Federal and Government Employees and Entities have sixty (60) days)
[Emphasis mine --Dajjal]
See also thread where Berg has filed for expedited discovery.
Press Release: Philip J. Berg Files for Epedited Dicovery and Special Master
Thanks for posting this. My buddy was just asking about what was happening with this case.
Some think Berg does not have standing in this case, but Obama is running for the highest public office and Berg like all of us have a stake in this outcome. We will see....
Any legal US citizen and registered voter has standing..........
Obama’s people can file a demurrer instead of answering, and the matter won’t be heard until after the election. Unless Berg gets a judge to expedite the matters, and in Philly, good luck, there is not much that can come of this.
I’m guessin’ that Sept. 31, 2008 thingy got straightened out.
I though some federal judge threw one of the suits against McCain out say precisely that voters didn’t have standing. I’m probably wrong though.
Of course delaying the matter only raises questions of why he would not be able to simply produce the document and lay the whole matter to rest.
Could the DNC answer when he chooses to delay? They may choose to do so to get Hillary on the ticket.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
From the order to expidite
AND NOW this ______day of September, 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiffs
Motion for Extensive and Expedited Discovery including the Depositions of Barack
Obama and Howard Dean with a Special Master, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Motion for Extensive Discovery is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiffs Motion for the Expedited Discovery regarding the
Deposition of Barack Obama is GRANTED and Barack Obama
shall submit to a Deposition:
a. By September 31, 2008;
b. At the Federal Courthouse, a neutral location, in Philadelphia,
I’m surprised it hasn’t already been tossed over that entry.
If Obama speaks to a court, and no one covers it, does it make a sound?
First we get Sept. 31st, and now we get “lawsuite.”
Is this real?
Just the fact that the suit was brought in Philadelphia and a jury trial demanded is suspicious.
If the Republicans are smart, some Republican organization will join the suit to prevent collusion. Even better, file another suit in another jurisdiction and try to have them consolidated somewhere other than Philadelphia, DC, or San Francisco.
No. You are probably correct.
The question of whether or not a particular plaintiff has "standing" to assert a claim for relief in Federal Court is a technical one usually encompassing several distinct issues.
One is the question of the specificity of the harm suffered by the plaintiff as distinguished from the general populace and the question of whether the plaintiff's harm is directly related to some specific legal requirement.
Another issue is whether the case presents a present controversy. The general argument that the plaintiff would be injured because he would not have a person eligible to hold office under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the Constitution is not a present controversy with respect to Obama because Obama might not be elected.
At some point, the argument that there are only two practical candidates of the two record parties, both of whom are not eligible to act under Article II, Sec. 1 might result in a true controversy. However Berg didn't plead that so the argument is not before the court.
At some point, there may well be parties who do have an interest. It seems to me that any Secretary of State (of an individual state) who choose to do so might refuse to certify the electors designated by either or both candidates pending a legal resolution of their eligibility to serve.
Pennsylvania might be an ideal jurisdiction for this argument as might Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin because those states are places which both parties perceive to be keys to the general election. If all four Secretaries of State refused to certify ballots for electors designated for both candidates pending such a determination, likely we would get court involvement.
do you think Berg has his palm out??
Thanks. This could be interesting in a multitude of ways. There is one lawsuit active against Obama and I believe two (one on each side of the country) against McCain. It will be interesting to see the outcome and if it comes before the 1st Tuesday in November.
Sigh. Yeah, it would be nice if the guy could spell, use a calendar, etc.
Looks like the judge was kind enough to change that to Sept. 24th for him.
Yes. It goes something like: "ummm...ahhh..well you see...ummm"
I've heard Berg interviewed a few times and personally, I don't think so.
He seems to me to be a left-wing version of Larry Klayman (Judicial Watch). Once he gets an idea into his head, he goes around suing anyone in sight.
At present, I'm glad no Republicans are officially involved. If this lawsuit does force B. Hussein Obama to withdraw fron the race, then I want the diehard Obama loyalists to focus their wrath upon Hillary, and sit out in November.
If the GOP joins Berg, or begins its own suit, the Obama loyalists will redouble their efforts to defeat McCain, and Republicans at every level of the ballot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.