So, why is it taking so long? What is the judge waiting for? (Berg vs Obama)

Americas Right ^ | 10/19/08 | Jeff Schrieber

[Kevmo]

Surrick could be shaking down Obama. It wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened in politics.

[napscoordinator]

If Obama is not determined by the court as a bastard, then Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. If Obama is determined by the court as a bastard, then he is not, by U.S. law, a citizen of Kenya.

Why use that word? So are you saying Sarah's grandchild is a bastard?????? I think it is unnecessary to use that word now a days.

[Doug TX]

I don’t believe the purpose of Berg’s case is to determine eligibility, martial status, etc. Berg is requesting that the judge order bho and the DNC to release the documents. Once they are released, if they exist, the legal interpretation can begin.

[Citizen Blade]

Isn’t the FEC required to certify the qualifications for all candidates?

Candidates have to fill out forms to get on State ballots, but AFAIK, there is no requirement that a candidate for President provide proof of his meeting the Constitutional requirements.

I think the assumption is that no one is going to run for President if they know they are not a natural-born citizen. And there are remedies if it turns out they are not Constitutionally-qualified. If Obama were to get elected and it turned out he is not qualified, I think a SCOTUS decision to that effect would either get him to resign or, if he refused, would lead to Congress impeaching and removing him.

I just don't see this as a realistic fear.

[Citizen Blade]

Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.

I'm not sure I follow. If Obama was a natural-born citizen, how would his moving to Indonesia with his mother change this fact?

[Brown Deer]

ping

[LucyT]

Thanks, Brown Deer.

Ping.

[null and void]

I think this is the summary. Any comments?

Before election:

•DNC decides, method not specified
•RNC fills vacancy, reconvene convention or RNC state representitves vote, simple majority wins

Just before the election:

•Congress may pass special legislation to move back election day to give more time for the party to select a new candidate and regroup

11/4 Election

After election, but before Electoral College

•No federal law. Electors open to vote for VP, third party, or convention runner up. State laws may affect elector's abilities to select.

12/15 Electoral College

After Electoral College, before Congress counts the votes

•Congress counts Electoral College votes and declares winner. Winner's VP gets it

-or-
•Congress throws out votes. If a surviving candidate can be said to have a majority of votes, they get it.
-or-
•Congress throws out votes. Per 12th Amendment, House of represetitives selects from top three candidates with the most votes. (surviving Democrat or Republican and two third party candidates?)
-or-
•Per 20th Amendment, VP gets it, but only applies after candidate becomes 'President-Elect". That could be after Electoral College.

1/6 Congressional Vote Count

After Congressional count but before inauguration;
•Per 20th Amendment, VP gets it, but only applies after candidate becomes 'President-Elect" That is certainly after Congressional count.

1/20 Inauguration
•VP gets it

[Brown Deer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but can’t Muslims have more than one wife?

Not in the United States of America. Polygamy is a felony in this country.

[Brown Deer]

I needed an official birth certificate, original SSI card, fingerprints, and I don’t know what else, just to substitute teach, before they would hire me.

Being a substitute teacher is above 0bomba's pay grade.

[mlocher]

Obama wrote in his book about his fear to face his parent’s marital status.

Tell Obama not to worry. We already know he is a b@stard.

[TakeChargeBob]

Thanks for your response. With all the talk it is nice to understand the possible implications if it turns out that Obama is disqualified.

I did not have any idea of what the law or rules were. This gives me a good guideline but I do have some questions/comments.

It appears from your answers that it makes no difference if Obama were disqualified due to ineligibility whether due to lack of qualifications or death. Is this so? Is the issue of fraud relevant at all?

Now to your responses.

Before election:
DNC decides - is this true for all states?

Just before the election:
Couldn’t Bush veto any special legislation to move back the election?

What happens if the election doesn’t get moved and the ballots can’t be changed? Can states disqualify the Democrat choice on the ballot?

After election, but before Electoral College:
What are the state law limitations? McCain will get his votes. Does some states that have requirements not allow Obama votes and force votes to McCain - could this mean that McCain might pick up enough electoral college votes to win? Then could Congress overturn the vote? If so, that would be the Senate.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Time is runnin’ out...(sigh)...:0/

[WestCoastGal]

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.”

http://www.americasright.com/

[Calpernia]

LucyT, can you reping this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2109876/posts?page=54#54

and my own ping

[Calpernia]

This is probably why he is going to Hawaii:

>>>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<<<

[SE Mom]

Thanks :) read this with my first cuppa- and while the legalese is a bit technical for me- it seems Obama and the DNC better come up with a plan B pretty quickly.

[Calpernia]

It is pretty damning. But default, they just admitted that Obama is not qualified.

He isn’t leaving for Hawaii until Thursday, right? That is probably too late to withdraw for ‘good cause’. So technically, he should suspend his campaign now.

[pissant]

Obama the fraud BUMP

[Calpernia]

This should probably go in breaking news with a link back to this thread. Techically, Obama’s campaign just admitted they aren’t qualified for POTUS.