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.”
See post 296 for update.
The admissions are now filed. See post 296. I’m thinking the Obama team dropped the ball by assuming their motion meant they didn’t have to respond.
........................I thought they filed a motion for dismissal? Does that not count as a response?...............
If so, it might make the October 6th response date the time that the 30 day clock starts re-ticking - 2 days after the election!
amabo gnip...
I think that is where the Obama team may have dropped the ball. Berg cites in post #32 section 10 that states Civil Procedure, Rule 36(a) mandates that the defense respond to the admission request regardless of the motion to stay discovery since that hasn’t been ruled on yet.
So, if they really thought they didn’t have to respond, they just legally admitted to all the admissions cited.
Self ping
The motion for protective order hasn't been ruled on yet (at this rate, the court may just go ahead and grant the motion to dismiss, which would render the RFAs moot). A pending motion for a protective order is certainly grounds for not responding to discovery.
Calpernia, OUTSTANDING JOB and THANK YOU for your work!
I am an attorney. And this wasn't a "motion" that required a response -- it was discovery propounded by Berg less than a week after he filed a never-granted motion for expedited discovery. (The requests for admissions are discovery, btw.) Local rules for federal district courts differ, but generally one doesn't propound discovery until after a scheduling conference -- which is why Berg moved for expedited discovery. Your guess is as good as mine re: why the court hasn't ruled on the motion for expedited discovery. It has already denied Berg's motion for a temporary restraining order.
In any event, to shed some light here on what a nut Berg is, here is the docket:
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2008 | 1 | COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 951001.), filed by PHILIP J. BERG.(tj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008) |
| 08/21/2008 | 2 | MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY filed by PHILIP J. BERG,MEMORANDUM. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(tj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008) |
| 08/21/2008 | Summons 5 Issued; 4 Mailed to counsel and 1 Forwarded to the U.S. Attorney's Office 8/22/08 as to BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. (tj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008) | |
| 08/21/2008 | DEMAND for Trial by Jury by PHILIP J. BERG. (tj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008) | |
| 08/22/2008 | 3 | Minute Entry for TRO Hearing held before HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK held on 8/22/08. ESR. M. FINNEY: MR. BERG ADDRESSES THE COURT. COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (jpd) (Entered: 08/22/2008) |
| 08/22/2008 | 4 | ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINITFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DOC. NO. 2) AND AFTER HAVING A HEARING IN OPEN COURT IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 8/22/08. 8/22/08 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED FROM CHAMBERS. (jpd) (Entered: 08/22/2008) |
| 08/22/2008 | 5 | Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney Re: accepted summons and complaint for THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION on 8/22/2008, answer due 10/21/2008. (jpd) (Entered: 08/25/2008) |
| 09/02/2008 | 6 | Praecipe for Reissuance of Summons by PHILIP J. BERG. (BERG, PHILIP) Modified on 9/3/2008 (le, ). (Entered: 09/02/2008) |
| 09/03/2008 | 2 Original Alias Summons Issued as to DEFENDANTS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. Forwarded to Counsel on 9/3/08 (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/03/2008) | |
| 09/09/2008 | 7 | Affidavit of Service of BRANDON A. SNESKO re: service of Alias Summons and Complaint, Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery; Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery upon INDIRA HENRAD on behalf of DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, and upon AMANDA LAFORGE on behalf of DEFENDANT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE by PERSONAL SERVICE on 9/4/2008, answer due 9/24/2008. (jpd). (Entered: 09/09/2008) |
| 09/09/2008 | 8 | MOTION to Expedite Discovery, Extensive Discovery and Appoint A Special Master filed by PHILIP J. BERG.Memorandum and Certificate of Service.(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 09/09/2008) |
| 09/11/2008 | 9 | Reissuance of Summons for the FEC by PHILIP J. BERG. (BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 09/11/2008) |
| 09/11/2008 | One Alias Summons Issued as to THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. Forwarded To: Counsel on 9/12/08 (sc, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008) | |
| 09/15/2008 | 10 | ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY PLAINTIFF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE REGARDING SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPIDITED DISCOVERY UPON DEFENDANT BARACK H. OBAMA BY FAX AND UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE EXPRESS MAIL AND DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE BY FAX AND UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE EXPRESS MAIL. (FAX TRANSMISSION LOG AND EXPRESS MAIL RECEIPTS ATTACHED). (jpd) (Entered: 09/16/2008) |
| 09/18/2008 | 11 | APPLICATION BY PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 09/18/2008) |
| 09/24/2008 | 12 | MOTION to Dismiss filed by BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.Brief and Certificate of Service.(LAVELLE, JOHN) (Entered: 09/24/2008) |
| 09/29/2008 | 13 | RESPONSE in Opposition re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Brief in Support thereof and proof of service filed by PHILIP J. BERG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit)(BERG, PHILIP) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2008: # 13 Exhibit 1) (jpd, ). (Entered: 09/29/2008) |
| 10/06/2008 | 14 | MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by PHILIP J. BERG.Brief in support thereof and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 10/06/2008) |
| 10/06/2008 | 15 | MOTION for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive Motion filed by BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.Brief, Certification, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(LAVELLE, JOHN) (Entered: 10/06/2008) |
| 10/07/2008 | 16 | T.B. BRADLEY'S MOTION FOR APPLICATION TO INTERVENE WITH COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 10/07/2008) |
| 10/07/2008 | 17 | MOVANT T.B. BRADLEY'S MOTION TO APPEAR AS JANE DOE. (jpd) (Entered: 10/07/2008) |
| 10/09/2008 | 18 | RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive Motion Brief in Support thereof and Certificate of Service filed by PHILIP J. BERG. (BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 10/09/2008) |
| 10/15/2008 | 19 | U.S. CITIZEN JUDSON WITHAM'S APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT FRCP 24, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 10/15/2008) |
| 10/20/2008 | 20 | MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.Memorandum of Law, Certificate of Service.(LAVELLE, JOHN) (Entered: 10/20/2008) |
| 10/20/2008 | 23 | T.B. BRADLEY'S REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FILING COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATION WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE-PUBLIC CORRUPTION DIVISION AND OTHER U.S. AGENCIES, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: 10/21/2008) |
| 10/21/2008 | 21 | MOTION for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions - Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG.Deeming Requests for Admissions - Admitted.(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 10/21/2008) |
| 10/21/2008 | 22 | MOTION for Order Expediting Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion Deeming Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG.Certificate of Service.(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 10/21/2008) |
I'm afraid you're sadly misinformed. Berg issued a press release stating that because there had been no response to the requests for admissions, they were deemed admitted.
That is not so. It is only Berg saying it is so, and Berg has no authority whatsoever. He is merely a vexatious litigant with a website who has apparently suckered a bunch of people here in.
As I've mentioned above, Obama has moved for a protective order staying the requirement to respond to the requests for admissions (RFAs) until the court has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. No court will deem RFAs admitted under such circumstances.
Personally I don't think the lawsuit will be adjudicated before the election anyway, it's the stonewalling on the part of Obama and the DNC that's more devastating provided it can get out to enough people in time.
Right or wrong, however, the courts are not likely to be fond of being in the middle of it all - the one nice thing about it all is that Republicans aren't a party to the suit
OK, so he (Berg) is an uncouth skeptic - nutbag, in your terms.
The timing of his demands for release of the documents (discovery) is so short (Sept 15 until Nov 3 essentially) that he HAD to do that, because the democrats were going to deliberately stall, delay, obscure and ignore this case.
After all, if they had ANY document of ANY kind showing he was wrong, they would have shown it on Sept 16.
Even if it was only a cab fare to the hospital on the date of the birth, a parking recepit, a hospital bill, and doctor’s exam, doctor’s bill, a diaper bill - for God’s sake - ANYWHERE near the time of delivery would have been produced.
An insurance bill or insurance policy SHOWING the date of birth? Baby clothes? Did anybody buy a crib or bassinet BEFORE his family immigrated to HI?
Wow-——a bombshell.
Obama sr then married a few other women (being muslim he was allowe I think 4 wives).
Now then the marriage to Obama's mother. Evidently when they got married, they went to some other town or area and NO family members attended. So, there is speculation on whether a marriage actually took place or not. Same thing with the later divorce.
The case in Ohio started in Fed. Court because The GOP claimed that Brunner violated HAVA (Help America Vote Act) a federal law.
Berg's case is a civil case heard in state court(s).
The odds are pretty good that this suit will be laughed thrown out of court for lack of standing (which translates to lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Thus, in light of Berg's rushed discovery, it was also SOP to respond to the requests for admissions with a motion for protective order trial courts will generally stay discovery if there is pending a well-founded motion to dismiss for something like lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Everyone seems to forget, or never knew to begin with, that this is the same Philip J. Berg who filed a RICO suit against Bush claiming that 9/11 was "an inside job." Anyone here willing to admit that he or she believed Berg's website "press releases" in that little gem of a lawsuit?
Thanks.
We will see how long the Obama MSM Mediots, the DNC and rat filled congress will continure to ignore this.
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.