Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit: Obama, DNC Fail to Respond

Berg v. Obama:
Berg Says Obama, DNC Admit Allegations Due to Procedure
Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit

---

An interesting turn of events in the federal lawsuit filed by Phillip Berg demanding proof from Barack Obama that he is an American citizen and eligible for the U.S. presidency.

From Jeff Scrieber's America's Right - 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, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.

Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:

* 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.

Schreiber explains what this all means in the story at his site.

He does note:

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.

More curious behavior from the Obama campaign--or rather, legal team?

---

ALSO at DBKP:

* Washington Man Files Lawsuit over Obama Citizenship Questions
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Video Released On YouTube
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Updates, News and Reactions
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: The Curious Behavior of the Obama Campaign
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation

---

We're not sure why the Obama team did not file the necessary papers in time.

Schreiber, who's a straight shooter in his reporting ends his long and informative post with a quote from Berg on the significance of the non-action.

"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg said. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."

Two weeks before the election and things are going to be interesting.

---

[For more information and background on Philip Berg's civil action against Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, look to the right-hand side of the America's Right page for the list of related articles, updates and commentaries under the "BERG v. OBAMA @ AMERICA'S RIGHT" heading.]


by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp

Feds Cut Sentences for Crack: Sanity on Issue Long Overdue

The story should have been on the obituary page. Or at least, in the "severely ill" section.

The inane federal sentencing guidelines in which years of additional prison time were given to perps for their chemical preferences in cocaine consumption has ended.

From the Post-Tribune:

New federal sentencing guidelines are set to go into effect today that will reduce the average sentence for a crack cocaine offense by 15 months.

The change, put in place by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, could be applied retroactively, which would mean an early release for more than 260 prisoners in Northern Indiana, and 19,500 nationwide.

"This is a clear recognition by Congress that the penalties imposed (for crack) were unfair," said Kerry Collins, a community defender at the federal courthouse in Hammond.

The reason for the sentence reduction is to address a disparity created in the 1980s when Congress established mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

The law set up a system where crack cocaine -- which is made from powder cocaine -- carried much stiffer penalties than its powdered derivative.

A crime involving five grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory sentence of five years in prison, and 50 grams carries a 10-year penalty. However, it takes 500 and 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine to trigger the same five and 10 year sentences.

The calls for addressing this issue were always dressed in white and black--not inaccurately--but it was more about the issues of common sense, fairness and lack of effectiveness for many.

That disparity has earned particular criticism because of the racial overtones it carries, as crack offenders are more likely to be black and powder cocaine offenders are more likely to be white or Hispanic.

For instance, of the 19,500 prisoners nationwide convicted of crack cocaine offenses who would be eligible for reduced sentences, more than 85 percent of them are black and only 6 percent are white.

"That's the (biggest) issue: What community are we targeting?" Collins said. "It's pretty clear that the crack guidelines have targeted the black community."

In a report to Congress this spring, the sentencing commission called the disparity an object of "universal criticism from representatives of the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups."

The sentencing commission cannot change the minimum sentence law, but its recommendations can effect sentences for drug amounts that fall below, between or above the five and 50 gram levels.

"The (sentence) reduction is good," said David Vandercoy, professor of criminal law at Valparaiso University. "Most people would think it's long overdue ... (though) they would probably think (the disparity) is still too great."

The sentencing commission has tried multiple times before to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences in line with each other.

It attempted to change the guidelines in 1995 to treat both drugs the same, but that effort was overruled by Congress. It pushed for action again in 1997 and 2002, but nothing happened.

The changes will take effect unless Congress passes legislation to stop it, which it had not done by Wednesday afternoon.

The sentencing disparity, long a political football, has been as effective in reducing drug usage as other War on Drugs measure have been. That is to say, it' had been completely useless.

What it was useful for was putting people, both black and, increasingly white, behind bars a lot longer, for what was chemically the same offense as cocaine possession.

The same calls from prosecutors and some police chiefs will ring hollow. This was, finally, a victory for common sense.

by Mondoreb
[photo:interventionguide.net]



Back to Front Page.