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 concur. The best practice is to ask the Judge for more time to answer even if you have a dispositive motion pending. However, the Judge has the discretion to rule that the answering party can have additional time to answer if the dispositive motion is overruled. If like to operate like a cowboy, overconfident then you forego answering or even objecting but you are also taking chances in so doing. If your super careful you ask for more time and you could file sealed answers with the Court and ask that they not be unsealed until after a ruling on the dispositive motion, right? Clearly, if they had failed to file a protective order they would be in a pinch, in a very difficult position.
Would you, knowing what you know in the Berg v. Obama case, believe the judge would allow this laxity in production?
To paraphrase Michelle, meeting the white granny wouldn’t be “helpful” to her kids.
As someone who swore an oath to defend the constitution in your situation I would go to my commanding officer and point out we swore an oath. I would hope he would then go to his commanding officer and demand that he fulfill his oath and so on up the chain.
When Obama realized that the US Military would protect the constitution then his game would be up.
This is a big time screw up by some of the best and brightest legal minds in the Democrat party.
First of all with the election bearing down upon them they choose to do nothing, that has to rule in Berg’s favor, it also shows contempt for the court because they ignored it’s power to decide this issue.
Add to that the fact that this issue could be immediately dismissed if Obama provided his long form birth certificate and we have a triple whammy facing Obama.
I for one would certainly hate to stand before this judge and try to explain my way out of the hole Obama’s lawyers have dug.
Wow. Not only will he lose what’s left of the military vote, it sounds like the (honest) attorney vote is in jeopardy as well.
The books will be written all right, but what's in them and who writes them is highly dependent on the outcome of the election. Any "incorrect" books written in the interim will be burned, if the election goes one way, but not the other.
Filing for a protective order does not necessarily relieve the timely response. If the Judge doesn't issue an order for more time, the law applies.
I don't know how they will get out of this.
After the election, if Obama loses, it will not matter.
After the election, if Obama wins, they will be able to say that it would be “unfair” to through him out of office once he has taken the oath of office and then been sworn in. Then it would be diverted to the impeachment process or some other process that would allow the Judge to defer to some “higher authority.” They would question the District Court's authority to throw out a sitting president. By the time the litigation was done, it would be time for a new election, therefore moot.
I know a good delay is the same as deciding a case.
In this case, too many powerful people will not allow this lawsuit to win. If it could have won at any time, Hillary's people would have made it happen. The fact that they were stymied means they didn't have the power to do so.
So in this context, I don't think the court will hesitate to sit on its hands to avoid becoming “too political.” Of course, by doing so, it is becoming equally political and abrogating its responsibility to resolve disputes effectively for the litigants - in this case, effectively the litigants are all of the people of in the Country.
The first thing anyone running for President would do is make damn sure they could prove they satisfied Article 2, Clause 5, 10 different ways!
Berg and Martin and the others may have compulsive tendencies, pests to the legal system for years, but they should be commended for sticking this out.
For a while there I thought bambi had the cert and was just playing a game until such time he would produce it and humilate those who raised the issue and spent so much time and money pursuing it. Sure doesn’t look like that now. This is going to be verrrrry interesting.
They wouldn't touch it with a 10 *meter* pole. For fear that they'd be labeled racist nuts.
Have you ever tried to get a birth certificate for someone who is not related to you? You might have access to some data, but not necessarily all of it.
In adoptions, the birth certificates are changed to show the child’s new father. The original is then sealed with the court and not opened except on order of the court to do so.
This is not as easy after 9/11 either because of new security requirements.
It would be nice to know how the judge was for Barry’s adoption, wouldn’t it?
I agree its a problem. I would never do that in Fed Ct., just rely on my motion for a protective order, yikes. Now in state court, some you have to raise a fuss before judge would even consider enforcing the deadlines on some discovery issues. Bottom line Judge has the discretion to let them weasel out of the “admitted” admissions.
Same here, but waiting until the last minute to produce it seems rather sardonic and malicious.
Maybe the Grandmother has the real certificate in her safe deposit box at the Bank of Hawaii.
It would be nice to know WHO the judge was for Barry’s adoption, wouldn’t it?
Granny knows where he was born, where and if he was officially adopted. The whole thing.
Plus the Hawaii birth certificate "vault" copies are in Hawaii.
STANLEY???
I hope I read that incorrectly.
Some posters to this thread seem to think this has something to do with the midnight flit to Hawaii, to visit his elderly and ailing grandmother.
Who knows?
This is the strangest election in my memory, and I go way back to the Nixon/Kennedy debate!
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.