Posted on 10/21/2008 6:05:29 AM PDT by Calpernia
Original thread can be reviewed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2109876/posts
So, why is it taking so long? What is the judge waiting for? (Berg vs Obama)
By NoobRep
Today's Update by WestCoastGal
Unless the Obama Campaign applies for a withdrawal of admission and shows GOOD CAUSE, as of today, October 21, 2008, the Obama Campaign has legally admitted that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to hold the office of Presidency. Full coverage of this court proceeding can be read here: http://www.americasright.com/
Below is today's legal admission!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations
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, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.
Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:
A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, 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 legal and political ramifications of the defendants’ failure to respond.
“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.
Given the “usually devastating” consequence of failure to respond in time to a request for admissions such as those served upon Obama and the DNC on September 15, 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.
There are, however, several options for Barack Obama and the DNC at this point. The first, and most obvious, is the argument that pursuant to Rule 26(f), a request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery detailed under that rule, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg’s request has not yet begun. Here, though, Berg could feasibly argue either that the request for admissions is not a true discovery mechanism and is actually meant to streamline the future need for discovery, or that the defendants’ acknowledged service of the request in their October 6 motion for protective order and failed, at that time, to specifically object or answer. The second option for the defense, still easily foreseen, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted.
In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show
(1) “good cause” regarding why there was no response and
(2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. Here, Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards, that they cannot show “good cause” for failing to answer or object, and that withdrawing the admissions would cause undue prejudice.
Still, for Berg, the issue is clear. He simply wanted answers or objections, he said, and instead received nothing. Rule 36, according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.
“It all comes down to the fact that there’s nothing from the other side,” Berg said. “The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”
Andy Martin’s newsletter this mornings says they have a network news crew with them for when the courts unseal the records.
If the M/P campaign or any nationally known conservative show were to "run with this" before it is decided legally, it would appear that M/P, the RNC or conservatives initiated or are pressing the issue when it is really HRC & one of her supporters. I look for HRC to be at the head of the dimrat ticket come Nov. 4, probably with lyin' Joe as her VP. If Coke ZerO has to drop and throws full support behind her, while making it look like the right is to blame for his disqualification, she gains immeasurably. By sitting back and letting it work its way through, there is no appearance of impropriety or meddling.
Thank you, I am reasonably familiar with the language you cited. My question to you was too general.
The trial court’s authority in such a ruling would have to be based on the most solid footing ever seen in our nations history.
At what point in this proceeding, prior to Jan 20, 2009, would such an order be appropriate and survive USSC review?
As practical matter, is there time for the proceeding to reach such a point and to be reviewed by the USSC?
Thanks.
Even with all that, I’d take Hillary over 0bama.
Someone in the hearing will have to testify that there is a birth certificate or there is not.
They will be under oath, and would have real problems if they lied. It will not require the court to issue a ruling.
His “sick” grandma may be about to spill the beans and she’s REALLY getting thrown under the bus.
This could be a Hillary plan. Her and Obama cooked this up then he found out he actually had a chance to get elected so he threw her under the bus. Now, Berg, a democrat workinig for Hillary, brings out the dirt. Obama is off the ticket and Hillary is elected.
Just wishful thinking.
That’s good news. Something to air.
Then Drudge picks it up?
Who on earth are you replying to? That line is not from the posted writing nor is it any statement that I’ve made. Yet you are quoting me on it.
they were supposed to respond by 10/15, the motion was file on 10/20
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
Would that be Obama? Or the Grandmother? Or someone else?
I think he has a freeper user nic. Maybe he will surf by and say when he will cover this story.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/
Thanks, Calpernia.
Ping!
Obama is a Kenyan citizen, not an American.
That alone should disqualify him instantly.
Man, this has been the longest pregnancy ever.... we’ve been working on this everyday since February?
C,mon, Matt..... pick it up. Be the first.
It would have to be someone from the state, with custody of the records.
Most likely there is a subpoena ducas tecum that requires the state to produce a witness who must bring the records to court and be prepared to testify as to the contents of the file.
Not a problem. The dems elected the wife of a deceased politician, anyone who voted for him was counted as voting for her. Not a peep for the press or the courts. The precedent that votes seamlessly transfer to the party's real candidate is firmly in place.
Second nominating a guy who was never eligible to be POTUS is the kind of thing a party would take years to recover from
I hope you are correct, we should run against that lack of diligence and judgment for decades to come.
It's more likely that the democrat party will simply re-brand itself with the same tired faces marching under a new banner. Perhaps the Hope Party, as a tip of the hat to Bill's home town, and 0bama's slogan?
BINGO! Hillary!™ doesn't dare have so much as a single drop of 0bama's blood even look like it has spattered onto her.
If there is the slightest hint that she was behind his demise? Well, she'd be as popular as Judas Iscariot at an Easter sunrise service...
Wow- did you give me a wake-up call! I am a Baby Boomer, but was not a leftie back in the day - rather a pro-military, pro-America gal, pro-win-the-Vietnam war, which really was the majority of people back then. I looked up Saul Alinsky to see how old he was when he died (only 63), and that’s when I realized that you are right. Most of the radical 60’s types really abused themselves with hard drugs and other self-destructive sexual behavior that may kill them off prematurely. Ayers and Dohrn, however, looks like they’re in pretty good shape and ready to keep taking on the “MAN.” I’m just sayin’...everything that we hold dear, including our Constitution, is under serious challenge. Will we fight to maintain our founding principals when creeps like Soros, Ayers, and other Obama enablers go on the total offense?
Hard call. They serve the same master, but I think a charismatic 0bama might be capable of doing even more damage than a much loathed Hildabeast.
I'll hold out for a President Palin, if it's all the same to you...
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.