[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 # 22.
#3. To: James Deffenbach, Starwind (#0)
Check the docket. The court will grant Obama's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint that was filed yesterday. End of game. And, all of these breathless internet stories that create the illusion that Berg has accomplished something or that he has legally proven anything will vaporize. *POOF*
End of game. So much for that pesky Constimuhtooshun thingy.
If the court makes no ruling, Phil Berg can go to the Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus which will force the judge to give a ruling. If the court rules to dismiss because Berg has no standing (i.e. he is not a Presidential candidate), he can appeal to the Court of Appeals and from there to the Supreme Court. If he goes to the Court of Appeals, he will make the news. And that is all that he needs. Phil Berg is also being given the tapes from the API website which claims reveals Michelle Obama's raging sream session.
If Berg feels that he could prove that the court is not giving him his due ( HOW? The court has yet to rule on a single motion except one, to deny PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER on August 22. Just how does a lawyer who wishes to continue practicing law prove that justice has been subverted/denied when the court hasn't done a damned thing yet?) He'd be foolish to demand an archaic prerogative writ remedy from a higher court simply because the district court's timetable doesn't suit him. "If the court rules to dismiss because Berg has no standing (i.e. he is not a Presidential candidate), he can appeal to the Court of Appeals and from there to the Supreme Court. If he goes to the Court of Appeals, he will make the news. And that is all that he needs." Did you dig up a stone stone tablet that I don't about? As far as the media reporting this or the SCOTUS granting certiorari, well, gee, it's a damned shame someone didn't force FOX News to report that Ron Paul was winning all of the polls and that he had the largest turnouts at rallies and that Paul had the largest single fund raising day in history. And, the SCOTUS grants cert in perhaps 100 cases per year out of thousands filed. None of those cases threaten the incestuous corporate govt conspiracy or the two party system, or, the power of the federal judiciary to do as they please when they please to whoever they please. YOU CAN ASSUME THAT WHATEVER THE JUDGE DOES IN PHILA IS APPROVED BY THE SCOTUS IN DC, AND NO CONTROVERSY WILL ARISE FROM HIS ACTIONS OR LACK OF SAME. Now neither I nor anyone I know can force the courts or the media to do a damn thing they don't want to do. Do you know something we don't? "Mandamus may be a command to do something or not to do a particular thing. Mandamus is supplemented by legal rights. It must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it." link *Berg* "Uh, that's right, Mr. Chief Justice, I waited and gave the court enough time to grant my motions but...." *Chief Justice* "Is there a statutory limit on the time the court may take to deliberate this matter?" *Berg* "*GULP!*
There are no replies to Comment # 22. End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||