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.”
“For the sake of the country, they’ll have to let it slide this time. Because it would be racism and it would cause rioting throughout the land. So, this one time, its ok. Thats all folks.”
That is the most outrageous thought I’ve heard all day. You forgot to put the sarcasm tag on right? Right?!!
None of the cases cited by Berg involved a motion for protective order being filed in response to discovery. The parties in those cases simply failed to respond to the RFAs, and did so without seeking a protective order. No court will deem RFAs admitted where a protective order is sought under such circumstances. That would be reversible error.
Keep your eye on the ball.
Hey that ought to have its own thread
What BETTER way than the CONSTITUTIONAL way?
Please see Aritcle II, Section 1 which states:
No Person
[1]except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
[2]who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
[3]fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Pretty cut and dried.
Okay, I’m not a lawyer, so let me pose this scenario to you:
Obama’s lawyers cannot provide good cause why the process should be delayed nor can they cannot simply show a birth certificate. Therefore, Berg basically wins by default.
So, what happens now? Can Obama appeal? If so, can Berg request an emergency hearing? In the meantime does the judge’s ruling that Berg wins by default stand or will it be stayed by the higher court?
I guess that the last question will be determined by the politics of the appellate court judge.
I wasn’t talking about amending the Constitution now - I am talking about the bigger picture after Obama loses or has to step down. These people are very patient in their long march (Ayers and Dorn are good examples). They are highly focused on their goals to transform America into their vision. The Conservatives and other Patriots are not too focused and disciplined, which is okay when the Enemy Within is not as strong as they are now and will be in the near future.
That is what I’m thinking based on the wording in post 123.
bttt
“The Judge has the power to grant temporary restraining order staying the Oath of Office if Obama really plays games.”
That is interesting. May I ask what is the authority for that view? Thanks.
You sound like you might be a lawyer so I’ll ask you this: does a motion for a protective order mean that even if it’s not ruled on all motions that require a response by a given time can be ignored until the judge rules on the protective order motion? If so that would be a major oversight by Berg, who appears to be a competent attorney.
What ever happened to Corsi why is he not on Hannity?
D'Oh!
I don't know.
I wondered that as well.
“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.”
That they responded with a motion for protective order instead of admitting or denying each of the RFAs does not mean that the RFAs are deemed admitted by automatic operation of Rule 36. The court will either deny the motion for protective order and direct Obama to respond to discovery, or grant the motion and then rule on the motion to dismiss.
From Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2040:
Ever since the days of the former equity bill for discovery there has been applied to discovery “the principle of judicial parsimony,” by which, when one issue may be determinative of a case, the court has discretion to stay discovery on other issues until the critical issue has been decided. In accordance with this principle—a salutary principle if it is applied sparingly and with real discretion rather than as an absolute rule—a court may decide that in a particular case it would be wise to stay discovery on the merits until challenges to jurisdiction have been resolved.I would not waste a breath of my precious life paying any attention to this case unless there were nothing else to do in the world.
But if the restraining/delaying/whatever order is not _granted_, which apparently it wasn’t, isn’t the point moot and today is BHO’s last day to either put up or [be] shut up? Just _asking_ for restraint/delay/dismissal isn’t grounds for not meeting an otherwise effective deadline.
I see nothing wrong the media totally ignoring this. I mean if there was multiple lawsuits claiming Sarah Palin had possible been born in Canada I’m sure the MSM would just let it slide. /s
Oh, it won't be over then either. Please see Odinga's Kenyan experience - AND - what they have planned for here if bHo loses.
Link.
About 1/2 way down the thread.
Methinks a lot of these hardcore ‘60s Leftists are reaching the practical end of their political lives, and are likely to retire/expire before they get their next big chance (no matter how hard they work for it now) to get one of Them POTUS. Pushing for a suitable amendment just won’t be worth their trouble because it will take too long and do too little. BHO fails at this, he’s damaged goods, they won’t want him back.
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.