Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
If the Obama’s bid to be the most powerful man in the history of the world rests upon how his Grandmother will testify under oath, then that in a criminal murder trial might be called motive. Will there be a murder trial? Let’s hope not — rather let’s hope she lives, and does testify honestly.
Wait, what am I saying??? Of course I would! In my opinion as a speculation, or maybe as legally protected satire, or something...
Thanks David :) Have you read this?
http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/berg-obama-dnc-admit-all-allegations.html
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 fairly watertight 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 your pings for an update. The legal admissions are now filed and the DNC has admissions now too. PDFs for you to download to your files.
* * *
So most Americans would look askance at anyone who would suggest that such might happen. Not part of our history.
But such things ARE a part of human history.
Why would we be exempt?
No. The default on the request for admissions is a separate subject.
As I have said several times, Berg's case has a handful of obvious procedural problems. Joinder of the Secretary of State and of the Obama electors and of the political entities (DNC) helps to plug a number of them. But after you join these people, they then get a period of time to respond.
The period starts when they get served. Further, they get additional time with whine motions from counsel about his other trials and other obligations and it takes time to work through these issues. And I frankly don't know when service actually occurred but I think some of them didn't get served until recently.
And the remedy--the sanction to Obama if you will; is that if he doesn't produce proof he is eligible, these new parties will be enjoined from acting the way Obama wants them to act--specifically to put him on the ballot and count his votes and declare his electors elected to vote at the Electoral College. So in order to have a practical legal sanction in the outcome, you have to wait to get those parties into your lawsuit with a chance to respond to say "don't do that to us".
Allegedly, Obama’s daughters have never actually met granny Madelyn. So, yes, there must be tension in the relationship.
What birth certificate number? If he wasn't born in Hawaii he can't have a Hawaiian BC number, can he? The best he can have in the Hawaii state files would be a filing of his Kenyan birth record.
I haven't seen anything on this, do you have a link?
Not true.
Surf’s Up: Obama Family Heads for Hawaii
Several articles say they go every year at Christmas.
I say he is unqulified, he is a communist,birth certificate or not!
Nobama Communism/sharia law.
I say he is unqulified, he is a communist,birth certificate or not!
Nobama Communism/sharia law.
http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/berg-obama-dnc-admit-all-allegations.html
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.
It does not look as though the Request was timely on its face. You can't serve discovery until the period to answer has expired and in some jurisdictions until after the scheduling order has been entered. The argument that this Request is not discovery is all very interesting but probably not going to fly.
And the judge has the power to grant the party against whom a Request For Admission is being used as leverage, time to modify or explain or whatever. Judge will often make you describe and show your evidence in order to avoid the presumption but that would achieve the real objective here. But I don't think you get there yet because I don't think you have a timely Request to get the time period running.
No.
The Birth Certificate number issue is set out here in detail in an earlier post.
Initially, the fake birth certificate had the number blanked out by digital process--one of the things that demonstrated that the posted document was photoshoped.
The certificate number in Hawaii starts with a number which identifies the county of birth; the next four numbers are the year; the rest of the numbers identify the sequence in which this baby was born during the year.
Reason the fake certificate didn't have a number is because the makers didn't know what number would fit the sequence and would also not be the number of some live person who might appear and say, "no that can't be his certificate number because it is mine".
Calculations were made from the total number of births for the year and from knowledge about other certificates issued at points in the year of what the range of sequence numbers would have been for August 4, 1961.
Then, Obama went to Hawaii and came back with a certificate number which fit the sequence. You might speculate this is a number for an individual who died at or shortly after birth. But it could be anything. So far, no one has appeared to contest the issue.
And further, some document may well have been filed on August 8, 1961 that in fact got Obama a real number. You don't know.
ping
Is there not a single contemporaneous state birth registry with a listing of all births in Hawaii for 1961, from which the phony number he obtained this summer can be compared to see if any other baby was assigned the same number in 1961? Many jurisdictions maintain such birth registries.
The new and improved forgery image at the wholly Annenberg owned subsidiary, FactCheck, shows it as 151-1961-010641.
Sadly, no.
And the Susan Blake interview has been 'disappeared' from the web.
I just clicked on the pic
That image of a dark haired woman with a black baby looks like a scene from a comedy movie, it’s up now:
http://judicial-inc.biz/bAnne_durham_revenge_arack_obama_arrives_in_jerusale.htm
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.