[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama & 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, Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with a request for admissions. Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed on October 6 in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response be filed within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not. Therefore, this morning, Philip Berg will file two motions: * 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 ramifications the defendants' failure to respond may have. “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. 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 detailed under that rule for the purpose of planning discovery, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg's request did not begin yet. The second option, still feasible, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. On the first aforementioned option, Berg could argue 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. On the second, 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, and Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards. Quite obviously, this is developing....
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
The question is what is Oh'Bummer's stragety? There has to be a strategy at play as I'm sure his "Mouthpiece" told him what would happen i.e., that it would be an admission by default. So, at least part of the answer is that somewhere it was decided that trying to respond would be more damaging than to not respond. If I were Phillip Berg I would stay away from windows and have someone else start the car. What Berg needs is more state level suits - as a form of "Life Insurance".
#2. To: Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, noone222 (#1)
HOLY CHIT !!
But the thing is, the crooked sob's who run the courts--you know, the lawyers who have graduated to the Cult of the Black Robe--will never rule in Berg's favor on this thing. I admire him for trying to get at the truth but the truth doesn't matter much to the folks who have fubar'd this country and set it on its last trip around the bowl. If the truth, or some part of it, doesn't disturb their plans then they don't mind for the people to know it. But they don't want us to know inconvenient truths and have their people in place to keep people from knowing it. At least "officially."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||