Posted on 10/20/2008 3:15:52 PM PDT by NoobRep
Monday, October 20, 2008 Obama, DNC File Motion to Dismiss Berg's First Amended Complaint
Just a few minutes ago, attorneys for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, a motion for leave for which was filed by Philip Berg on Monday, October 6.
Generally, an amended complaint cannot simply be filed by an attorney -- the attorney must file a motion with the court, called a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, essentially asking that the court permit the amended complaint to be filed. That motion, the October 6 motion, is one of more than ten pending pleadings and still has not been addressed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick.
I am just now taking a look at it, but from a quick glance it appears as though Obama and the DNC are moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the same grounds for which they moved to dismiss the original complaint -- that Berg lacks standing and fails to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On September 24, 2008, Defendants Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Senator Barack Obama filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint filed in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, together with a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”). Assuming that no leave to amend is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading,1 the First Amended Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed, on the same grounds. No amendment to the Complaint can possibly cure its fundamental defects. Not only are the allegations patently false, but plaintiff lacks standing and there is no federal cause of action for enforcement of Article II of the Constitution. Nor has plaintiff set forth, i n the Amended Complaint, any other viable federal cause of action.
John Lavelle, the filing attorney for the defense, actually calls Berg out on a procedural problem which I initially noticed but was not so sure about when Berg filed the motion for leave to amend at the beginning of this month. As I had suspected could be the case, Lavelle is maintaining that his motion to dismiss was not a responsive pleading and, for that reason, Berg did not have to essentially ask the court for permission to amend his complaint but rather could have done so directly. As it were, it is a minor issue, as Lavelle goes on to say that even with an amendment--filed according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or not--Berg's claims are "patently false" and he still lacks standing to sue.
I have planned to speak with Phil Berg later on this evening for a number of issues. This will be among them. Please check back later this evening for more detail on this filing as well.
Man, I need about five or six extra hours in the day...
-- Jeff
Just provide a Certified Birth Certificate and it all goes away. Bloody hell. How hard could it be.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just produce the FREE documents asked for. I wonder what there is to hide?
How could any US citizen not have standing when asking to prove the citizenship that is required by our Constitution to be POTUS?
Why isn’t this on TV or on Rush, Hannity, Levin, or any of the other conservative talk shows??????????
We are beginning to look like a 3rd World Country. State Department could clear this up if they hadn’t sealed the passport records which I think is wrong. If you want to run for President, we, the American citizens, have a right to know where a potential President traveled and if it was an American passport. I don’t think that verifying the person is qualified to run for President is too much to ask!
If there could be enough of a groundswell of public opinion on the matter, Senator Government will be forced to do so. The LS media and press surely won't do it - people like Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Prager, Savage, Mike Reagan, Hewitt, etc. have to do it LOUDLY and CONSTANTLY from now going forward. Just the appearance of trying to hide this will hurt him among undecideds, and they hold the key to this election.
They won’t touch it until after Surrick makes a decision.
BTTT
Just trying to run out the clock. I hope Surrick doesn’t have any vacation plans in the next two weeks.
THis is why we all hate lawyers. They make everything so damn complicated.
Exactly! Who then would have standing? This is a joke. The fact that the Obama camp is taking this route really seems to indicate that there's some substance to the case.
I recognize the humor in your comment, but in all seriousness, that is exactly the argument made by Bill Clinton against Paula Jones, who prevailed in her law suit thus proving that Bill 'the bent one' Clinton was and remains an unremorseful sexual preditor.
>Just provide a Certified Birth Certificate and it all goes away.<
Even if it is proven that he is a Kenyan muslim and not a US citizen, his disciples will vote for him anyway and, based of what I have seen lately, the SC will not stand in the way of him becoming POTUS.
Perhaps this whole thing was designed to divert attention away from 0’s other associations. Just a diversionary tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. The question I have is why isn’t the GOP involved?
bump
This could all be a set up; stall it out as long as possible and then produce the document. If Rush, Hannity, or Levin would grab hold of this, they could end up looking like fools. I wouldn’t put it past the “One” and I’m sure others have thought about this as well. The best course is to let it go through the legal system.
Is there a deadline for the judge to reply?
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.