My wife sued a former employer, and the defendant never showed up to court. So, the judge ruled in her favor by default. I guess this is similar to that?
BTW, did you know Obama had so many aliases?
Quote:
Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro
I think there's a 99.5% chance that this whole thing is nonsense. But if you have the proof, why not satisfy that outlying 0.5% chance and send your lawyers to court to end the absurdity? It seems like it would be fairly simple to do.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
isn't the burden of proof on the gentleman making accusations, rather than on the person being accused?
Sure it is, in theory. But it isn't as simple as that. There are certain requirements of the defense as well . . . such as responding within 30 days, as etothepii mentions. Why not just respond? Part of that response would have likely included the actual birth certificate. The judge could then have ruled, and it would likely have been in Obama's favor. Obama would never have had to appear in court. The entire thing could have been stopped dead in its tracks. Instead, they give Berg the opportunity to send out more news releases and get a lot more attention. Although I don't listen to Limbaugh, someone said that he addressed the issue on his show yesterday. If so, he probably doubled the exposure this story has gotten in one fell swoop.
I've figured all along that this was a fraudulent effort by a disgruntled Hillary supporter. But now my curiosity is piqued. It's almost certainly a baseless claim, but at the very least, it's another example of Obama's arrogance. If you or I were to be named in a federal lawsuit, we would have to respond in 30 days, regardless of how fraudulent the charges might be, or face the consequences.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
isn't the burden of proof on the gentleman making accusations, rather than on the person being accused?
Not at all.
Quote:
Rule 36. Requests for Admission
(a) Scope and Procedure.
(1) Scope.
A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:
(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and
(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
(2) Form; Copy of a Document.
Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.
(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding.
A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.
(4) Answer.
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
(5) Objections.
The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.
(6) Motion Regarding the Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection.
The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may defer its final decision until a pretrial conference or a specified time before trial. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of expenses.
(b) Effect of an Admission; Withdrawing or Amending It.
A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other proceeding.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
Well, as long as you crafted that into a court filing, that would be a response. Obama's attorneys haven't responded at all. That's the point I'm making in this. I think the whole thing is not only ridiculous but probably fraudulent. But there is a process that must be followed.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
Let's say you sue me. You have made an accusation against me. I can't ignore that and go on with life as usual. I have to let the courts know the answer to your accusation.
It's going to have to come up sometime, but the McCain campaign, to my knowledge, hasn't pushed Obama to actually give up and verify a birth certificate. If McCain or the RNC did, they'd probably hand Obama more votes. Have no idea where this is going. If the court actually did take it up, then would Obama be bound by law, or a court be bound by law to enforce the measure? They're worried it'll turn into a reverseTrooper Wooten event, but with only 12 days in the election, that doesn't seem possible. Will this thing go anywhere legally? It doesn't appear to have been struck down.
I'm in Europe right now, but I'm getting back on the 31st, so I don't get American TV.
Is this in the media now? Or not at all? The latter would be what I would assume.
Contrary to popular belief, there are some definite issues here:
a: obama has released none of the 'usual' information usually released by
presidential candidates (he brings up the issue of McCains lackluster
education, but has yet to release his own transcripts...do they contain
references to a Kenyan birth or some other, disqualificatory information?)
b: Obama's 'birth certificate' has been ruled a forgery three separate times,
regardless of how many times it's been posted on the internet by the
obama campaign
c: there appears to be a genuine issue as to where this charlatan was born
which SHOULD have disqualified him from candidacy a long time ago.
d: there appears to be CONSTITUTIONAL issues regarding foreign
entaglements, which SHOULD have disqualified him from candidacy a
long time ago (such as loss of citizenship..etc.. It sems the demo-slobs
went nuts when the "Governator" wanted to run for president but he was
zealously opposed by the dems who pointed out he was not a natural
born American...yet I see no such zeal in verifying Osama as a citizen...).
e: the fact that the judge handling this case did not toss it out proves there
is some sort of legal 'standing' to proceed in this matter
f: the 'complainant' is an ex-deputy Attorney General of the State of
Pennsylvania, a liberal and lifelong democrat.
g: Obama has defaulted in this lawsuit by failing to respond within the requred
30 days.
Is it the intention of the DNC to allow this to proceed unchallenged, allow a potential 'foreign national' to be elected to the highest post in the free world and then have him removed when his citizenship/place of birth is finally discovered ? Is a "Biden Administration" going to be the ultimate goal of these scurrilous, vile and power-mad mutants ? Is the final option to be to throw Obama under the bus ?
More imortantly, what happens in the unlikely event that Obama is constitutionally barred from this election ? Do they prop up Hitlery as the #1 person ? DOes the election get cancelled ? Will Biden be 'history', with Hitlery appointing her own VP running mate ? My God...what a mess ! IF this proceeds to the worst possible scenario, this can have catastropic effects from coast to coast. Why wasn't this commie crapbag vetted by the DNC ???
Interesting spin going on...
Obama's attorneys haven't responded at all. That's the point I'm making in this. I think the whole thing is not only ridiculous but probably fraudulent. But there is a process that must be followed.
