This post reprinted from the blog Texas Darlin, originally titled “Minefield” here
A Constitutional Minefield
By Judah Benjamin, Guest Author
Ladies and gentlemen, I keep telling you I’m not a Lawyer but that I have studied Law. Now one of the reasons I’m not a Lawyer is that I have neither read nor studied The Federal Code of Civil Procedure, I could never be bothered and never needed to because Law concerns me as it impacts certain Historical events or actions. Philip J Berg, Esq, on the other hand is a Lawyer and has read it. I direct you to:
…where Jeff Schreiber has devoted all of his spare time to looking at the case. (Thank you beyond measure, Jeff, I don’t know where you get the time and energy. You are a hero, and Republican, or not, I hope you end up as Chief Justice.) Go to Jeff’s site, I don’t care if he’s a Republican, he’s the man who is in contact with the Court and with Berg and who breaks the news the minute it comes out.
Berg has struck back with a Procedural bombshell!
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
B) 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.
These motions are based on Rule 36 of The Federal Code of Civil Procedure. This Rule, it seems, states that “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.”
Needless to say, Obama and the DNC have NOT made any Legal admissions, or answers to the allegations, at all since September 15th, at least none of which Berg is aware and he should be if they have.
If Judge Surrick grants these motions, Barack Hussein Obama II is, at least temporarily, neither eligible for the Office of POTUS nor a Citizen of the United States, in Law.
They will counter with Rule 26(f), “A request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery” and 26(d) and 26(c), basically that a Motion for a Protective Order is a response to a discovery request and relieves the moving party from the obligation to respond until the motion is resolved by the Court. Or 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.
Frankly, these counters look solid until you examine the circumstances and their arguments to dismiss and their motion for a Protective Order.
Obama and the DNC have said three things. Examine their motions, I’m translating.
a) Everything Berg has alleged is “patently false”. (Motion for Dismissal)
b) There is no legal mechanism to enforce Article II of the Constitution of the United States and therefore Berg has no standing, or vice versa. (Motion for Dismissal)
c) Obama and the DNC claim, “with good cause”, that revealing the information requested by Berg through discovery would “cause a defined and serious injury.” to Obama or the DNC, raises “legitimate privacy concerns”, “poses a risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documents” and that Berg does not have standing to ask for it. (Motion for Protective Order). My major response to this consists of WTF!?!?!
Firstly nothing is “patently false” unless it is provably false by virtue of public, obtainable, widely known and demonstrable FACT. That is the definition of “Patent Falsehood” and there are NO public, obtainable, widely known and demonstrable FACTS about Senator Obama’s Citizenship at all, there are only assertions of unproven reliability. Assertion (a) is “Patently Untrue”.
On (b) Obama and the DNC MAY be correct but IF they are, explain what use the Constitution of the United States is, what purpose it serves and why people take Oaths to uphold and defend a meaningless scrap of paper.
On (c) I have this to say:
A Candidate for the Office of POTUS has, so far as I am concerned, so far as most thinking people are concerned, and as far as Berg is concerned, no Right to, or Expectation of, any form of Privacy Protection in Regard to matters pertaining to Eligibility for that Office. Not only does not have but by definition should neither Expect to have nor Claim to have. The mere assertion of such a Claim is in, and of, itself grounds for Supposition of Ineligibility. Any embarrassment, or harm, caused would be justifiable and self inflicted. This Motion teeters on the brink of an admission of guilt, in fact appears to be one, in and of itself.
Berg is asserting that in his September 15th Service on Obama and the DNC he SPECIFICALLY asked for ten Legal Admissions or Refutations and these have not been forthcoming. Instead, Obama and the DNC filed for Dismissal and a Protective Order, in other words, SPECIFICALLY refused to supply any information whatsoever. Obviously, Berg has been planning this because if Judge Surrick grants these motions, and until specific Refutation with supporting evidence is granted, Obama is Legally Admitting Ineligibility and that he is not a US Citizen, of any sort. It is ONLY a Technicality, BUT a technicality of devastating proportions. The DNC is admitting that they are fully aware of this, Legally.
I do not know what Judge Surrick will do and I’m glad I’m not him because this is a Constitutional minefield.
Obama’s Attorney is blocking every attempt to obtain information which any reasonable person would provide and could provide. The Protective Motion is a bar-room joke and the contention that the Constitutional Provision is unenforceable is an insult to the Framers and proof of my initial argument that this is an end run around the Constitution.
SEE THESE OTHER EXCLUSIVE TD ARTICLES:
Obama is Indonesian, Update by TexasDarlin (9/30/08)
Obama is Indonesian by TexasDarlin and Judah Benjamin (9/30/08)
*Breaking* Obama Admits Dual Citizenship by Judah Benjamin (9/25/08)
Photo Documents Barry Soetoro: Indonesian Citizen, Muslim Religion by TexasDarlin (8/13/08)
Kenyan Citizenship Report Debunked by TexasDarlin (8/13/08)
Obama’s Dual Citizenship Disaster by TexasDarlin (8/10/08)
The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesian Background by Judah Benjamin (7/29/08)
Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Citizenship Problem, Part 2 by Judah Benjamin (7/25/08)
Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Citizenship Problem, Part 1 by Judah Benjamin (7/25/08)
