Posted on 10/20/2008 9:44:03 PM PDT by A_Niceguy_in_CA
According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.
On September 15, Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with a request for admissions. Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed on October 6 in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response be filed within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not. Therefore, this morning, Philip Berg will file two motions:
* A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted, and
* A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.
Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is "damning," and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James' talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today's filings and the ramifications the defendants' failure to respond may have.
“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”
Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.
Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:
The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.
Just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?
* Admit you were born in Kenya.
* Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
* Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
* Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
* Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
* Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
* Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
* Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
* Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
* Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
* Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
* Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
Quite obviously, this is developing....
Posted to America's Right by Jeff Schreiber
I am just noting that there may be reasons Berg and Martin aren’t getting faster response in the legal system. I’m not attacking, just making an observation. Berg and Martin are playing the role of messengers now. That’s why hundreds if not thousands of concerned voters must also get involved.
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to imply your culpability. I am directing my charge to a minority of Freepers out there that attack the political enemies of our political enemies. That was my point, I took your comment as a good one in contrast to Freepers who rant Berg and Martin are crazy their the devil, blah blah blah. So I think you and I are on the same page, right?
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/
From Arkansas, perhaps?
GOP staying mum. Probably their crazy want to save “democracy” at all cost when they pulled an OJ jury on us and decided not to find Billy guilty of impeachment.
National security and nation protection is now part of democracy and “sexual-preferences”, “choice” etc... what do you know? It’s irrelevant, it’s not hot. (sarc)
Remember this suit is Clinton vs Obama, not McCain (or RNC) vs Obama.
I don’t think Rule 16 of FRCP has yet been satisfied so this is probably completely B.S. Rule 16 requires the judge to schedule a meeting between lawyers and set the ground rules for discovery and disclosure. I don’t think this has been done yet, so we are long way away from a ruling.
If BO were already installed as president and subsequently removed or unable to serve for any reason, his VP would become president. If he was found ineligible before the electoral college meets (and assuming the capitol is still there after the riots!) then it might be anyone (Hillary?)!
Are you a more-experienced attorney than Berg?
I believe Hillary never officialy conceded and sat on standbye in a compromise at the DNC convention.
I’m not a lawyer. I just don’t trust Berg, but hope I’m wrong.
It does look like Clinton double act, Monica style: it’s not so much the truth as the ability to install a culture of scum.
Many laws and people are illegaly in power or accessing National Security stuff. Democracy, this whore which challenges the Constitution with pushing people to force upon others illegalities, Hitler style, is the real thing being pushed by the left here.
It’s the “Catch me if you can” syndrome in America. Why, if Obama can be voted for infanticide, why not let a complete foreigner sneak himself or herself to the Presidency? Protecting that whore democracy is the cave in GOP agenda, since we are afraid of civil strife and disobedient idiot followers of a false Messiah.
That’s what I take from this. Someone who takes a shot at it is needed but then again, the Barabas factor is in, and the goods will be called “extremists” for doing the right thing, for cutting the “phallus” we let go in.
That being said, America hates control and manipulation, and I do not see Obama’s style flying very far in that preachy cheesy respect of his. To make a preacher or a f@g smile is not what America likes to be ordered to do.
Charismatia is about to take a hard nose dive. Attacking Christians is also the end of the line in terms of pathetic excuses as the nation flounders.
Biden worries me with his dooms day test of Obama Reichtag style, knowing they can’t figure to protect America since they’re all (useful idiots pro-terror expedient) compromised by foreign powers.
Do you mean that Obama would not have any criminal culpability for defrauding a national election process? Or do you mean that it wouldn't matter in respect to the election itself?
The latter - but no one will chase Obama for any wrongdoing.
but obama would not never have legally been able to take the office, so he never legally had have a vp, only a partner in crime, and millions of stolen dollars, etc. correct?
If it is proven that Obama is not even a legal citizen, as one of the scenarios goes, shouldn’t he be prosecuted (along with the DNC, although I know this probably would never happen) for a conspiracy to overthrow the US government?
So if Obama was elected, he would not be "qualified" by CIA standards to receive "top secret information".
bttt
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.