See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama & DNC Admit all Allegations
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.americasright.com/2008/1 ... dnc-admit-all-allegations.html
Published: Oct 21, 2008
Author: America's Right
Post Date: 2008-10-21 01:18:50 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1415
Comments: 26
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....
* 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
HOLY CHIT !!
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
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*
Fobama didn't have to prove his bon eee fides and it was dismissed? That's IT?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
If I've learned anything from dealing with the federal judiciary it is this; they will never allow their own courts to be used to defeat them. When Red Beckman and Bill Benson went to all 48 state houses and collected the house journals for 1913 it showed that the 16th amendment (the income tax) was not ratified by the required 2/3rds of the states. (AK and HI were not yet states) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told them that the records were meaningless because they weren't certified. They repeated the whole arduous journey and process, the next time obtaining certified copies of each of the state house journals, and they requested a hearing en banc of the entire court of appeals and then spread the record. When confronted with the irrefutable proof that the goddam tax was never ratified, the senior justice of the court said, "This is a political matter on which we cannot rule!" and then he ordered the steno not to transcribe the hearing! So, even if Berg has the proof in hand that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, the court would simply rule that "This is a political matter on which we cannot rule!" order the court stenographer not to type up a hearing transcript and then order Berg as an officer of the court to never tell a soul what had transpired that day in the courtroom. As it is they'll simply grant Obama's and The DNC's motion to dismiss, (or wait until after the election and BERG makes the motion to dismiss his own suit!) and/or they'll state some catch all excuse such as, "Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted" or say that he had no standing to sue because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies such as petitioning the secretary of state and the FEC through administrative channels before filing in federal court. (and, because there is no statutory process to remove a candidate and no mandatory deadline for them to respond they can stall him forever and he can't force them into court, either. The court would simply rule that he must wait until they decide or he hasn't "exhausted his administrative remedies"!) The rules of the court are not standardized or mandatory. Each judicial district adopts its own rules and they may be suspended/disregarded/ignored at the convenience of any judge, and the entire system all the way up to the SCOTUS will back all lower court decisions that protect the wormy system no matter how egregious by refusing to grant a hearing on the matter. The media never reports on this black robed tyranny, the people don't really care as long as their gummint chex keep a' cummin', those who know the truth are insiders and direct beneficiaries of the corruption (or dead patriots whose planes and cars mysteriously crash, or are convicted for some "tax crimes" and put on buses for diesel therapy for years so they can't even mail letters to their lawyers or family while "in transit" between federal correctional facilities) and basically, there is no justice in America and we are sqwewed. Trying to force the court to rule against the shadow govt would be like me suing a mother and demanding that she admit that her baby is the ugliest kid in the country! It wouldn't matter what legal precedents I cite or rules I invoke because she will never admit it.
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."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. When Red Beckman and Bill Benson went to all 48 state houses and collected the house journals for 1913 it showed that the 16th amendment (the income tax) was not ratified by the required 2/3rds of the states. (AK and HI were not yet states) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told them that the records were meaningless because they weren't certified. They repeated the whole arduous journey and process, the next time obtaining certified copies of each of the state house journals, and they requested a hearing en banc of the entire court of appeals and then spread the record. When confronted with the irrefutable proof that the goddam tax was never ratified, the senior justice of the court said, "This is a political matter on which we cannot rule!" and then he ordered the steno not to transcribe the hearing! I remember all that. Have both volumes of their book, The Law That Never Was--pretty dry and dull but they proved their point. And the "judges" proved they could not be trusted to acknowledge facts that were inconvenient or that put an end to one of the government's biggest and longest running cons.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. End of game. So much for that pesky Constimuhtooshun thingy.
I have a few more that I would like added to the list: * Admit you are a terrorist What would be the chances of my list being added to the existing request? Or must I start my own inquiry?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I doubt he will ever admit to any of that but I imagine several of them are true. I think it is beyond dispute that he is a terrorist sympathizer (for proof of that you need look no further than his buddy, Ayers [sp?]).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. This is the point where well meaning people run off the rails. For whatever reason, some still think they can present a case, offering irrefutable evidence, and get a judge and jury to arrive at a just decision. That isn't the system and only in isolated instances was it ever the system. The law, rule of evidence, and the evidence itself is what the court decides it is. Let Berg keep filing his motions; they'll go nowhere. We are a people w/o representation, nor legal remedy. The only question is when have we had enough?
You forgot to add the admission that he snorts crack and dances on both ends of the ballroom.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The "law/justice system" has been a business for nearly as long as the business of politics. Both go beyond the pale of corruption. This nation has nearly one million "lawyers" that manipulate the system for profit.
Yep, and lets not forget the political hacks, posing as judges who are all bar card holders. Lawyers are a necessary evil, but 9.10ths of the profession are bottom feeders.
Seems I recall there are about 150 "law skools" and 125 med schools. That should tell us something.
there's the crux. articulately written summation, dawg.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
As always, very educational and well written. Thank you. those who know the truth are insiders and direct beneficiaries of the corruption (or dead patriots whose planes and cars mysteriously crash, or are convicted for some "tax crimes" and put on buses for diesel therapy for years so they can't even mail letters to their lawyers or family while "in transit" between federal correctional facilities) and basically, there is no justice in America and we are sqwewed. The one saving grace has been the net. After Barry takes the brass ring, they'll take further steps to rope it in.
Ahmadinejad in 2008! i see you find this humorous. does it not trouble you in the least that obama's response was a no response? can you not see the very wide implications/ramifications of this?
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
He's not paid to do that.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
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.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Seeing your figures reminds me of some figures that were given out a number of years ago about Japan and the United States.......how we have something like 1 lawyer for every 3,000 people, Japan has about 1 engineer for every 3,000 people. These aren't the figures, I don't think--but only to show where priorities are. I can remember thinking back then, 'no wonder we're so screwed up here'!
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!*
Christine, I am sorry but I do find this hilarious. Obama's no response was the proper response because the purpose of this activity is harassment. I may be mistaken, but when someone files to run for the US presidency, they don't file with this wacko former something in Pennsylvania so he needs to sue whomever accepted Obama's application if he believes that they didn't properly check Obama's papers.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Why should Obama follow the U.S. Constitution? Bush didn't.
Are you saying that the US constitution states that the candidates for the US presidency file with Mr. Berg?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
LOL.
#2. To: Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, noone222 (#1)
#3. To: James Deffenbach, Starwind (#0)
#4. To: HOUNDDAWG (#3)
#5. To: Rotara (#4)
(Edited)
Fobama didn't have to prove his bon eee fides and it was dismissed? That's IT?
#6. To: Original_Intent (#1)
Lord Acton
#7. To: HOUNDDAWG (#5)
If I've learned anything from dealing with the federal judiciary it is this; they will never allow their own courts to be used to defeat them.
Lord Acton
#8. To: HOUNDDAWG (#3)
The court will grant Obama's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint that was filed yesterday.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#9. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
(Edited)
* Admit that Osama is your real mamma
* Admit that you routinely beat your wife with a bong
* Admit that you are having group sex with your children
* Admit that, while in Kenya, human flesh was part of your daily diet
* Admit that you hate the US Americans
* Admit that you are a backdoor man
* Admit that you are a collector of Liberace records
* Admit that you wear women underwear
* Admit that you can't swim well
* Admit that you are not black enough
* Admit that you would do Paris if given the opportunity
* Admit that you could see Tora Bora from your bedroom window
* Admit that you shoot Bold Eagles from a helicopter, then your wife makes them into Eagleburgers
#10. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#9)
Lord Acton
#11. To: HOUNDDAWG, all (#5)
So, even if Berg has the proof in hand that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, the court would simply rule that "This is a political matter on which we cannot rule!" order the court stenographer not to type up a hearing transcript and then order Berg as an officer of the court to never tell a soul what had transpired that day in the courtroom
#12. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#9)
Lord Acton
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#11)
We are a people w/o representation, nor legal remedy.
#14. To: Cynicom (#13)
#15. To: Jethro Tull (#14)
#16. To: HOUNDDAWG (#5)
The rules of the court are not standardized or mandatory. Each judicial district adopts its own rules and they may be suspended/disregarded/ignored at the convenience of any judge, and the entire system all the way up to the SCOTUS will back all lower court decisions that protect the wormy system no matter how egregious by refusing to grant a hearing on the matter.
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#5)
Everyone agrees that unanimity is hard to find.
#18. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#9)
#19. To: christine (#18)
i see you find this humorous. does it not trouble you in the least that obama's response was a no response? can you not see the very wide implications/ramifications of this?
#20. To: Esso, James Deffenbach, HOUNDDAWG, Rotara (#8)
#21. To: Cynicom (#15)
#22. To: Horse (#20)
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.
#23. To: christine (#18)
#24. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#23)
#25. To: TwentyTwelve (#24)
#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#25)
Are you saying that the US constitution states that the candidates for the US presidency file with Mr. Berg?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest