"My Coming November Crackup"
The Dems are getting nervous. The polls are tightening, knuckles are whitening, and the prospects are frightening! Witness this HUffPo THREAD by Sherman Yellen, "My Coming November Crackup." In spite of some polls giving Obama a sizeable lead, this old HUffie fears Rovian Republican chicanery come Election Day. Hee! Hee! So before we get to his thread, let's reinforce Sherman's fears with a song. Click and sing along!
CRY (If you see polls)
By Johnnie Ray-of-Sunshine
Tune: "Cry" (If your sweetheart) Original
If you see polls that turn out to be too high
It's just Diebold, you'll feel better if you cry
When voting on a touchscreen
Don't you sometimes think it's real
But it's only fall elections that they steal
If the FReepers seem to hang around and gloat
And the red states keep getting redder with each vote
November storm clouds can be found
Behind the sunny skies
So get your hopes down and go on and cry
If the FReepers seem to hang around and gloat
And the red states keep getting redder with each vote
Well now, November storm clouds can be found
Behind a sunny sky
So get your hopes down and go on and cry
So now let's watch Sherman Yellen gird his loins for "My Coming November Crackup," in Bolshevik Red, while the commentary of your humble guest correspondent, Charles Henrickson, still recovering from "My Cubs' October Crackup," is in the [brackets]:
My Coming November Crackup
[I have a feeling WE'RE going to crack up reading about it! Start, Yellen!]
I just spoke to my old college friend Roger.
[Emphasis on "old."]
We are older men with reasonably good nervous systems . . . yet this election has been a new high in personal fear and trembling.
[Old Yellen!
Calm down, Yellen!
Stressed, downright down and depressed. . . .]
Our cracks are beginning to show. . . .
[Joe the Plumber Disease.]
And damn it, we have become more and more fearful and superstitious. . . .
[If your cracks begin to show, be careful not to step on them.]
We both confessed to waking up real early and heading towards . . .
[. . . the bathroom. Sherman's March to the WC. Gird up your loins, Sherm!]
. . . our laptops to check on the latest results in the presidential polls before feeding the cat or making the morning coffee. . . .
[A beeline to get online before feline or caffeine-mainline.]
A ten point lead? Nothing! What's that to these Republicans, trained from birth to swallow ten points for breakfast with their orange juice and Metamucil?
[Breakfast without election fraud is like a day without sunshine!]
Do we exaggerate their power to find and kill Osama, rig the voting machines, and smear, smear, smear Barack Obama into a narrow defeat all in the course of a single day before the election? Not a bit.
[Rove, Rove, Rove your vote
When you're on the screen
Narrowly, narrowly, narrowly, narrowly
Swipe it by machine!]
We wonder why that power to destroy cannot be put in the service of building the country and working towards economic and social justice.
[If only they'd use their power for good!]
Thank you very much Tina Fey, but darling that you are, you are preaching to the converted. The real Sarah Palin doesn't get it -- nor do her rabid followers. And we fear that they see the White House in the sights of their rifles.
[We can see Rushbo from our House!]
We need a twenty point Obama lead tomorrow for us nervous guys to sleep easy.
[Does Medicare cover Ambien?]
Having seen the devious ways the Republicans operate, we find it impossible to believe that they will not once again pull some Rovian trick. . . .
[Some PERFECT Rovian Trick!]
Our mutual friend and fellow classmate Bob, a fine landscape and city scene painter, just died of melanoma in Maine. Among his last acts was sending in an absentee ballot for Obama. . . .
[Hey, as a Democrat, he may get to vote AGAIN!]
No, forget the crackup, I won't go to France or to pieces if McCain/Palin is elected. I will go . . .
[. . . feed my cat, who's probably starving by now. . . . OK, Shermy, now let's hear from your fellow HUffies . . .]
My brother told me that he actually might move to France if Obama loses.
[Is that you, Stephen Baldwin?]
We old farts just aren't as resilient as we once were.
[Back in the Farter Administration.]
The forces of light are staging a comeback.
[Obamassiah as Light-Worker.]
I clean the health food store out of their anti stress supplements. . . .
[Try the bong shop.]
I will be weeping on November 5. . . .
[Democrat Voting Day, AKA Guy Faux Election Day.]
I'm visualizing myself dressed in red white and blue on that day though, to celebrate Obama's win! I will be laughing crying. . . .
[Freudenschade, baby!]
It must be that 60's idealism. Its like a virus: just flares up once in awhile. . . .
[I think it's the herpes.]
If Obama loses this election, it will be because of massive fraud. Therefore, the country will be up in arms and heading for Washington.
[The Million Moonbat March! Sherman's March to DC!]
I wouldn't want to be riding around with a McCain Palin sticker on my car after Nov 5th if this fraud occurs, I wouldn't be safe.
[Days of Rage! Is that you, Bill Ayers?]
I will no longer accept stolen elections. LOCKED AND LOADED!
[Just go with the "loaded."]
This almost-senior woman is nervous, too. . . . I voted early. I spent about 7 minutes on the oval next to Obama-Biden to be absolutely sure that I had filled it in completely and stayed within the lines. Before I did that, I read the instructions 4 times, checked three times to be sure the ball point pen was a black ink pen, and lined the table with paper so as not to get last night's dinner on the ballot. When I was done with the ballot, I checked it three times. I hand carried it to the county clerk's where 3 officials were handling early voting, turned it in, hung around to see where the clerk put it, and then paced around a little bit in the lobby before deciding it was probably okay to leave my ballot in their hands.
[OCD much? You still probably ended up voting for Buchanan.]
At least I know my vote will be counted. Well, I am pretty sure. . .
[Heh heh heh. . . .]
I'm leaning Italian in a hurry.
[Ciao! Arrividerci!]
I share your fear of what the dark Rovian forces might be willing to do. . . .
[Fear the Rove.]
The corporate media has found a cash cow by framing this election as a "horse race". . . .
[Congratulations! You win the Mixed Metaphor of the Day Award!]
Let's just hope that we - as Americans, don't rest on our laurel and . . .
[Hardy.]
Hurry Nov. 4th, so that we can return to our regular routines!
[Our regular routine of doing what we're doing now: Whining on the Internet.]
This is why everybody should vote. The turnout should be 100%. . . .
[130% in some precincts.]
until the election is called Nov. 4th, I will be white knuckling it.
[Typical white knucklehead.]
I can't vote but I can say to all my fellow bloggers, I am chuffed by your passion. . . .
["Chuffed" gives you away. And so DUFU News is now projecting that Barack Obama will CARRY Great Britain!]
I too, cannot function normally anymore. . . . I really am not well.
[Situation Normal: All Functioned Up.]
posted by PJ-Comix at 8:26 AM
46 Comments:
How about Obama's slippery slope of tax INCREASES!
Obama says he wants to tax the top 5%, those evil rich. Do you believe him? If so, you are a sucker! Bill Clinton pulled that same stunt in '92-'93.
Obama will start at $250K, then send his bill to congress. Congress will change it to the tax bracket which is taxed at 33%: $160,851 - $349,700: 33% of the amount over $160,850
articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Common/Taxes/2007TaxBrackets.aspx
So that brings $250K down to $160K. This is the slippery slope that Joe the Plummer was talking about. Joe the Plummer is a smart guy, he knows a weasel when one shows up at his residence pandering for votes.
Obama will say he has to go along with congress, and they will raise that tax bracket to 39%, a whopping 6% increase.
His plan also hits small business hard, because that's the tax bracket they use. That 6% comes out of their bottom line, and will lay off employees.
Obama will bite his lower lip, quivering, just like Clinton used to do, and say to the American public: I tried, I tried as hard as I might, but the congress and the economic realities force me to go along with their plan. But don't worry, at $160K, that's still give tax relieve to most Americans, and an increase to those evil rich people at $160K. So the slope is sliding. The next year, they will lower it again, and again, and again.
So whereas only 20% of small business are hit at the $250K figure, as told by the Wall Street Journal, more like 40% are hit at $160K.
Also, Obama will change the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%. That hits all the 50% of people in America who have stocks covered by 401K.
He also has indicated he wants to take away 401K deductions in favor of some sort of government program. So that affects me and you. I will get a tax increase, even though I'm squarely in the middle of the middle class. Simply because of the loss of the 401K tax deduction. This is creeping socialism, and I don't like the creep.
Don't make a bad move, space cadet.
Vote McCain instead, he will cut spending, and keep taxes as they are. That's more freedom than under Obama.
mrpunkykitten.blogspot.com/2008/10/slippery-slope-of-tax-increases-from.html
Silly DUmmies... They don't even know that Republicans vote on Nov 4th, and Democrats are supposed to vote on Nov 5th.
Oh, and feel free to attempt some DUmmie-Fu on my truck with the McCain/Palin sticker...
I'd like that...
A lot.
"We wonder why that power to destroy cannot be put in the service of building the country and working towards economic and social justice."
We keep trying, but the damned Democrats keep screwing it up.
You know what? Screw it.
I hope Obama wins. I hope its a tight race, I hope the results perfectly match the polls ... and Obama wins.
And on November 5th, let these freaks go all nutty trying to balance their freudenschade silliness with their certainty that the polls are fixed. (I'm sure in their lunacy, they can explain the paradox of a Democrat congress and White House with polls fixed by Republicans, right?)
And I hope the Democrats take more seats in the House and Senate. (Just not quite enough to make it filibuster proof).
And then ... let's just let these idiots run things. The grown ups in this country will make sure they don't do too much damage.
Yeah, I have concerns about the Supreme Court. I grandkids will suffer for Obama getting the chance to put 2-3 justices on the Court.
But other than that ... it'll be funny. I mean FUnnie.
Because when they realize that nothing changes, that HopeenChange is just another shyster ... when they suddenly start to see the simple reality that governing is hard, that it takes compromise, and that no change ever comes over night ...
Well, it'll be entertaining.
What the fuck will these people do if they can't blame everything on George Bush? How will they handle the inevitable terrorist attacks (oh, right. That'll be Bush's fault.)? How will they handle the obvious and coming Obama crises?
Seriously. I hope he wins. Give these idiots what they want and then step back and watch the stupidity.
If we live through it, it'll be hilarious.
Plus, it'll guarantee 20 more years of Republican domination. Nothing creates new Republicans faster than a bumbling liberal President.
This guy makes Jimmy Carter seem like a rocket scientist.
Obama/Biden '08, baby! For the lulz!
...working toward economic and social justice.
Whenever I read those words, I fear for my 401(k), my house, my family, my freedom and my country.
Hell, In Marion County, Indiana, we already have 107% of the population registered to vote.
ACORN's headquarters in Indiana? Marion County.
The news reports that urban police are gearing up for possible rioting should Obama lose. Too, DUmmies and other lefties are threatening violence should the Annointed One be out voted.
Accordingly, the Obama campaign has issued a new campaign slogan:
"Vote for Obama and nobody gets hurt."
Three headlines Nov 5th!!
John Mcain Elected President!!!
Mass Suicide Among Members of Dumbicrat Underbelly!!!
obama Voters Being Rounded up for Treason and Frog Marched into GITMO!!
elrond hubbard said...
"The news reports that urban police are gearing up for possible rioting should Obama lose."
Ehhh, they'll be rioting either way. Big deal.
Accordingly, the Obama campaign has issued a new campaign slogan:
"Vote for Obama and nobody gets hurt."
LMAO
I love the rove rove rove your vote song.
"...and lined the table with paper so as not to get last night's dinner on the ballot."
Great! Why not just tell EVERYONE what a lazy, filthy, disgusting, slobbish pig you are! You can afford a computer to spend all the time in the world to "blog" on, but not a friggin' roll of paper towels?
How about an old sponge?
Boy, I'd hate to smell your house. Your cat's litter box must look like a cross between Gaza, Hiroshima and Beirut- including the radioactive smog!
I will be weeping on November 5. . . .
I love the smell of left wing weenies crying like little girls in the morning. Smells like...victory.
"I will be weeping on November 5"
What a bunch of EMOs.
Damn, not a pair of testicles among all them.
"Vote McCain instead, he will cut spending, and keep taxes as they are." javadoug
No, he won't. In fact, if you get health insurance now through your employer, McCain will tax that benefit as if it were wages. He will tax your employer, and you, for your provided health care. He'll include a $5000 dollar IRS tax credit at the end of the year for the privilege.
I want each of you (who are lucky enough to have health insurance through your employer) to add up what you and your employer pay a year. Go ahead. I'm waiting. Once you've arrived at that figure, subject it to your State and Federal payroll taxes then balance it against the $5000 tax credit you'll receive under McCain's plan and tell me you're not about to lose more money.
Your all's willingness to be led around by the ring in your snout is truly breathtaking. And yet somehow apt because it just shows, demonstrates, elucidates, quantifies and qualifies, your irrefutable dumbassedness. Which is immensely satisfying for some strange reason.
"and tell me you're not about to lose more money."
I'm not about to lose more money.
"I'm not about to lose more money." sham
Yes you are. I, troglaman, promise you are in debt. Iraq, Afghanistan, bank bailout, gas, food, unemployment, health care, education, roads, bridges, blah blah blah. 10 trillion dollar deficit. You're losing money, dumbshit. You're in big time debt.
You owe a whole buttload of money, sham, whether you know it or not. So do your kids.
And I'd like to take a moment to thank you for electing these assholes who made it all possible.
"And I'd like to take a moment to thank you for electing these assholes who made it all possible."
Sorry, but we're not the ones voting for Democrats who propped up Fannie and Freddie.
So, go thank yourself.
"... I want each of you (who are lucky enough to have health insurance through your employer) to add up what you and your employer pay a year. Go ahead. I'm waiting. Once you've arrived at that figure, subject it to your State and Federal payroll taxes then balance it against the $5000 tax credit you'll receive under McCain's plan and tell me you're not about to lose more money. ..."
I buy my own high-deductible policy with AFTER-TAX dollars. I don't have an employer who runs my premiums through his payroll system using BEFORE-TAX dollars.
Premiums run about $4320 per year for my policy. That represents about $5615 BEFORE-TAX dollars. McCain's deal will mean I pay $180 tax versus $1295 tax now.
With the high-deductible and a linked Health Savings Account, I'm able to put $3800 pre-tax dollars away per year to pay for deductibles and excess costs. That saves me about $1140 tax. i.e., I pay $155 tax now versus $180 under McCain's plan.
I'm not sure how Obama's plan (if he has one) would impact those costs. I do know that his plan will hit me harder on other taxes.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv-04083
Plaintiff :
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, ::
vs.
Defendants :
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, ::
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.
Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Having reviewed the Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P.
56(c) is GRANTED.
This Court Declares 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 is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.
The Democratic National Committee is hereby enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and both the Democratic National
Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning
on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.
It is an ORDER of this Court that Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.
BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 27
It is further ORDER of this Court; Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $48,300.00,
representing all fees and costs associated with this suit to date.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________
Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
United States District Court Judge
For the Eastern District of PA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083
Plaintiff : PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, ::
vs. :
Defendants :
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, ::
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within Motion
for Summary Judgment and Brief in support thereof and moves this Court for an Order granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff and against Defendant’s, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and The Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter “DNC”] on all Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c) on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff served Discovery by way of Requests for Admissions and
Request for Production of Documents upon Defendants, Obama
and DNC, on September 15, 2008.
2. Although Defendants, Obama and DNC, filed a Motion for a
Protective Order staying all discovery pending the Court’s decision
on a Motion to Dismiss, Defendants failed to serve Plaintiff with
any Answers and/or Objections to the Requests for Admissions
Served upon each Defendant, Obama and DNC. To date, the
Court has never issued any Protective Orders.
3. Failure to Answer or Object to Requests for Admissions within
thirty [30] days deems the Request for Admissions “Admitted,”
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c).
4. Since the Requests for Admissions are now deemed Admitted,
there are not any genuine issues of material facts remaining and
Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against Defendants, Obama and
the DNC, as a matter of law.
5. To date, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, has expended
considerable time in pursuing this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff
requests counsel fees and costs. In the amount of $48,300.00.
WHEREFORE, for the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg,
Esquire, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment against Defendants, Obama and the DNC as to all his claims and award counsel fees and costs to Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire in the amount of
$48,300.00.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083
Plaintiff :
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE ::
vs. :
Defendants : BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL :
PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, THE DNC AND OBAMA
A. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party.
Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the
United States Constitution.
Plaintiff and many other citizens of the United States have donated money and time to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee, in reliance on promises and assurances made by the DNC in the Democratic Party Agenda. It provides that the Democrat Party’s goals, among others, are to “restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government”, to “restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans” and to “uphold the Constitution.”
To uphold the Constitution includes making sure that the Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair and legitimate campaign.
In vetting the Presidential candidate the DNC and FEC are required to ensure the
eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential
candidate, if elected, would be eligible to serve as President.
To be eligible and qualified to run for and/or serve for Office of the President of the United States a person must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.
The natural born citizen clause has prohibited many prominent Americans from becoming President, including Governor Schwarzenegger and former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.
The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the
United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status:
1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?
2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?
3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?
If the answer to the first question is “yes” then Obama meets the citizenship requirements to be President. On the other hand, if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second or third question is “yes”, Obama is not eligible to be President.
Plaintiff has learned through extensive investigation that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Plaintiff learned that Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a United States citizen who was not old enough and did not reside in the United States long enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen.
Under the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in 1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire “natural born” United States citizenship if the United States citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for ten (10) years prior to the child’s birth, five (5) of those years being after age fourteen (14).
Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America
v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet the age and residency requirements for her child to have acquired “natural born” United States citizenship. Therefore, Obama may not be considered a “natural born” United States citizen.
There is no indication that Obama is a naturalized citizen either.
In response to requests from Plaintiff and the general public for Obama to
produce proof of his citizenship, Obama allowed the Daily Kos to post on their website an image of a Certification of Live Birth with Obama’s name on it purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate at www.dailykos.com.
This same image was also placed on Obama’s website, http://fightthesmears.com and on another website located at http://factcheck.org.
The image placed on these websites is of a Hawaiian document which is provided for children’s births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births abroad, which have been registered in Hawaii, whether the citizenship status was “natural born” or “naturalized”.
Thus, the posting of Obama’s purported birth certificate did not prove Obama was a “natural born” citizen.
Further, the images placed on these three (3) websites were later discovered by Document Image Specialists to be altered and forged images.
It appears that Obama became an Indonesian citizen.
Plaintiff discovered through investigation that Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who either signed a government form legally “acknowledging” Obama as his son or “adopted” Obama, either of which changed any citizenship status Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia.
Obama was registered in a Jakarta public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A.
There was no other way for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools and any time a child was registered for a public school, their name and citizenship status was verified through the Indonesian Government.
These facts indicate that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, and therefore, he is not eligible to be President of the U.S.
Plaintiff filed suit on August 21, 2008 seeking proof of Obama’s citizenship
status. Defendants, Obama and the DNC’s Answers were due on or before September 24, 2008.
Plaintiff filed a Motion on September 09, 2008 for Expedited Discovery,
Extensive Discovery, Deposition of Obama and Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman and a request for the appointment of a Special Master to be present during the depositions.
Defendants failed to respond or oppose Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, which is still
pending before this Court.
On September 15, 2008, Plaintiff served discovery by way of Request for
Admissions and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants Obama and the DNC.
Instead of filing an Answer, Defendants, Obama and the DNC filed a Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff did not have
standing and failure to state a claim which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff Opposed the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and requested to file an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint and attached his
First Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A” on the early morning of October 6, 2008,
document number fourteen (14) on the docket.
On the afternoon of October 6, 2008, Plaintiff received a call from John P.
Lavelle, Jr., counsel for the DNC and Obama in order to meet and confer regarding
discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f). Mr. Lavelle
requested a stay of discovery pending this Honorable Court’s decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss currently pending.
Plaintiff declined this request as Obama’s citizenship status is of National security as he is running for President of the United States.
Mr. Lavelle stated he was filing a Motion for a Protective Order staying
discovery pending a decision on the Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Shortly thereafter, Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order was filed with this Court as document number fifteen (15).
This Court has not ruled on Defendants’ motion. The Presidential election is only two (2) weeks away. Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as President of the United States. As aresult, Plaintiff as well as many other United States citizens have been harmed and will continue to be harmed until Obama proves his citizenship status or withdraws as the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Plaintiff as well as many United States citizens will have been deprived of their constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate and will lose the money they have invested in Obama in the elusive hope of “change”.
The citizenship status of Defendant Obama is a critical issue and of concern to
Plaintiff as well as the general public, which needs to be addressed prior to the
Presidential election on November 4, 2008.
Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding
Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status.
The fact Obama is a U.S. Senator for Illinois and a Presidential candidate, he is open for public scrutiny and Plaintiff as well as all American Citizens have a right to question and receive proof of Obama’s citizenship status.
Moreover, Defendants have failed to answer Plaintiff’s requests for Admissions
in a timely manner, and those matters are automatically deemed admitted in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a); McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
B. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO UNDISPUTED FACTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF:
Request for Admissions were served upon Defendants, Obama and the DNC on
September 15, 2008.
Answers and/or Objections were due within thirty [30] days.
Although Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order on October 9, 2008, the
Court has never ruled upon their Motion and therefore, a Protective Order was not
granted and discovery has never been stayed.
Failure to Answer or Oppose Requests for Admissions deems them Admitted.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36, McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000), Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732 (1977); Siss v. County of Passaic, 75 F. Supp. 2d 325, 331 (D.N.J. 1999).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 states in pertinent part:
“(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.
Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Defendants were simple and straightforward recitations of fact which could be admitted or denied and to which Defendants should have personal knowledge and familiarity. Despite the simplicity, Defendants failed to Answer and/or Object to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.
Since Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions are based solely on Plaintiff’s Complaint which addresses Obama’s non-natural born United States citizen status (Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Obama are attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions served upon the DNC are attached hereto as Exhibit “2”), the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen was automatically deemed admitted upon Defendants’ failure to answer Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission in a timely manner.
The admitted matter is conclusively established for purposes of the pending action. See American Auto Ass'n v.AAA Legal Clinic, 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991)
(conclusive effect of admission applies equally to matters affirmatively admitted and
those established by default).
Therefore, there are no issues of material fact that remain and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims.
Admissions of fact made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 are
“unassailable statement of facts that narrows the triable issues in the case.” Airco
Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.29 1028,
1037 (3rd Cir. 1988).
For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
against Defendants, Obama and DNC, should be immediately granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims.
C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE and
MUST BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF:
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c), Summary Judgment should
be granted to Plaintiff because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986), Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 786 F.2d 564, 568 (3rd Cir. 1986).
The Third Circuit Courts have considered the question of the proper interplay
between the granting of a Summary Judgment and requests for admissions and have held that failure to respond to properly served admissions permits the entry of summary judgment when the facts deemed admitted are dispositive. See Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176 (3d Cir. 1990) (deemed admissions sufficient to support summary judgment); Freed v. Plastic Packaging Materials, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 550, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1975).
In this case, Defendants’ deemed admissions warrant the entry of a Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff because the deemed admissions address every element of Plaintiff’s claim and no genuine issues of material fact remain.
For the above aforementioned reason’s Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be immediately granted to all of
Plaintiff’s claims.
D. CONCLUSION:
For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire,
respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Grant his Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee, as to all of Plaintiff’s Claims.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to declare 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 is not a “natural born” United States citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.
Plaintiff further requests this Honorable Court to Order The Democratic National
Committee to remove the name of 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 from the Presidential ballot and to enjoin Defendants from any further Presidential campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al.
In addition, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to Order the Democratic
National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al to pay all fees and costs associated with this suit in the amount of $48,300.00. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Philip J. Berg
Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in
Support thereof, were served via electronic filing on the ECF System, this 22nd day of October 2008 upon the following:
John P. Lavelle, Jr.
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL, LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8603
(215) 864-9125 (Fax)
lavellej@ballardspahr.com
Joseph E. Sandler
SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC
300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
sandler@sandlerreiff.com
Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: 202.628.6600
Facsimile: 202.434.1690
Attorney’s for Defendant’s RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee
anon 1:26PM
There many reasons for opposing Obama, this is not one of them---it's bogus.
Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther and a waste of everyone's time.
Elrond Hubbard, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
When some lefty raised the question of McCain's citizenship, McCain produced his birth certificate and that was the end of the question.
Obama, on the other hand has refused to produce his birth certificate. Why? Obama could have easily taken the wind out of Berg's sails by producing a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii as he claimed.
This suit was filed, and the defendants legally served. All they had to do was to produce the documents and that would have been the end of it. When someone ignores a suit, the court holds that all allegations are to be taken as true. So, if the suit is properly filed, and the Obama lawyers failed to respond in a timely manner, it means that either Obama is incompetent to choose his legal representation, and thus incompetent to choose advisers in more serious matters, or it means that Obama and his lawyers know that all the allegations are true and Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of POTUS.
If it's bogus, why didn't they just produce Obama's birth certificate? Why didn't they answer to the allegations?
I think it is probably true, and just ONE MORE reason to oppose Obama.
Another reason to oppose Obama: Ayers, just some guy who lives in his neighborhood, ghost-wrote his first memoir, the one that Chris Buckley read and decided to endorse Obama because.
Here is the state of that issue, and the evidence is comprehensive and strong. Hopefully the mainstream media will pick up on this issue ASAP.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78834
Way back when we were younger in this thread...
Taxes
"Bill Clinton pulled that same stunt in '92-'93."
Oh NO! Lets not go back to the economy under Clinton!!
We are so much better off now. Go look at the GDP under Repubs and Dems you nimrods.
Obama is not a natural citizen....
Talk about a dead horse. Simple question for you....With this being such a great deal breaking, traction earning issue.....Where are the McCain folks....why are they not beating this dead horse too?
Duffas, the constitution uses only the words "natural born citizen" and nothing more in dealing with this. McCain, whatever his birth cert says is as much in the grey here as Obama.
But hey, we welcome your monopolizing this thread (nice post dickweed....no one read it....zip no one).
Without this to occupy your time, you'd likely hurt yourself or be smearing feces on the walls.
"Another reason to oppose Obama: Ayers, just some guy who lives in his neighborhood, ghost-wrote his first memoir, the one that Chris Buckley read and decided to endorse Obama because." The Bad anon
No. Ayers did not ghost write and Buckley did not endorse Obama because he read his fucking ghost-written book. You lie, you piece of shit. Lie like a dog on a rug.
What Buckley actually said was this:
But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/2/
Inauthentic. Just like this girl:
"A John McCain campaign volunteer made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter "B" scratched on her face in a politically inspired attack, police said Friday. Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from College Station, Texas, admitted Friday that the story was false, police said." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/24/politics/main4544204.shtml
See? You fuckers just make this shit up. You make it up. You all have the heard the secret Michelle tapes, right? Or a bunch of "whitey" quotes or "racist's are trying to derail my husband..." audio recordings? Let's hear them. The fact of the matter is no, you don't have them. You've never had them. You PRETEND you have them. You act like you have them when you don't. You act you know Ayers ghost wrote, but you don't know. You're all pathetically, fucking insane.
And then there's this:
"The head of a voter registration group hired by the California Republican Party was arrested over the weekend for allegedly lying about his address in the state in order to vote illegally, the office of California's secretary of state announced Sunday. Mark Anthony Jacoby, the owner of a signature-gathering firm called Young Political Majors, was taken into custody by Ontario police just after midnight Saturday and booked with a felony punishable by up to three years in prison."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/republican-voter-registration-chief-arrested-fraud-california/
So, so typical. How many arrests have there been made in the last several years concerning voter fraud? Acorn anyone? And the guy was in fucking Canada. I'm sure he went there for the health care.
Keep it up you friggin Einsteins. How does it feel knowing the rest of the nation is smarter than you? Perhaps a few more vouchers could help.
troggy, you won't like the story about the L.A.Times holding onto video of Obama praising an anti-Semite.
Makes me smile.
Is it just me or do we suddenly have a bus load of lefties making camp here? There goes the neighborhood.
Son of gunfather....
"troggy, you won't like the story about the L.A.Times holding onto video of Obama praising an anti-Semite."
Wow...you must be right....it''s a big conspiracy. Unfortunately the LA Times did a full story on this including a full quote from Obama...in April. See below.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
BTW, dickweed. Unlike you and your blood brothers, we actually dialog with others....and yes even those with whom we disagree. I know its impossible to get your head around. But just to challenge your little mellon....please point to the part where he is anti-semite.
Listening to Palestinians = ant-semite. Yup.
Anon....
"is it just me...."
Nope it isn't just you and these are probably not new folks.....they are just waking from their 8 year stupor.
RAID eliminates parasites.
Collectivism == Cannibalism
Robin Hood was a leech. A looter for moochers.
Wow...you must be right....it''s a big conspiracy. Unfortunately the LA Times did a full story on this including a full quote from Obama...in April. See below.
Ha a "full" story, yet they refuse to release the video. Guess it wasn't that full, eh nimrod? ;)
"I buy my own high-deductible policy with AFTER-TAX dollars." mr. galt
Are you buying it through your employer or on your own?
"troggy, you won't like the story about the L.A.Times holding onto video of Obama praising an anti-Semite. Makes me smile." son
And I won't be holding my breath about another dumbshit expose. Hell, I'm better at predicting bison herd migration than you guys are at predicting another psychotic wingnut concoction.
Wanna make a bet to charity, son? I'll bet $100 right now that you're full of shit. Pick your charity.
The LA Times is about run a story about Obama's anti-semitism. Got that? That's what 'son' is saying. I, troglaman, challenge his prediction. I say he's full of shit.
Anyone want to chime in? Charity, people. The holidays are on the horizon.
If son's right by November...um...10th, I'll give our local hospice a hundred bucks. If he's not right, you dumbshits give to anyone but the KKK and/or Mormon Poligimists, or rattle-snake evangelists. Those are my, troglaman's, conditions.
Come on, you pussies. Put your money where your mouth is.
"Are you buying it through your employer or on your own?" -- t-man
On my own -- outta my after-tax wallet, not outta my before-tax paycheck.
"Is it just me or do we suddenly have a bus load of lefties making camp here? There goes the neighborhood."
Indeed...and notice how quickly the tone changes; and name-calling replaces ideas.
So tiresome.
"On my own -- outta my after-tax wallet, not outta my before-tax paycheck." mr galt
I make a better deal covering myself with my employer (though I pay extra) then buying independently for my dependents. Employer coverage is better but much more expensive. Seven hundred bucks a month more expensive. (that fact-based shit enough for you gunslinger, dumbass?)
The argument has progressed beyond the fact that we could achieve diminished health care costs. We can. The real problem is you stupid jerk-offs that don't want to do it.
It's a truly amazing thing anyone listens to you dumbfucks anymore. It really is.
"Indeed...and notice how quickly the tone changes; and name-calling replaces ideas." gunslinger
Poor baby.
Actually, the employer-sponsored insurance system and the tax bias that encouraged and subsidized it has made the true costs of health care (not insurance) opaque to consumers (i.e., sick people).
The subsidies have encouraged consumers to demand comprehensive benefits instead of catastrophic coverage, so the whole system gets more money flushed through it. The more money flushing through it, the more lobbies want to increase that flow.
They're banking on the size of the flow, not the efficiency and profit levels normal Capitalists should be concerned with. This is another systematic and philosophical defect of government regulation and its attendant political pandering and corruption that nobody seems to want to talk about (unless it's a corrupt Republican).
Think about homeowner insurance and car insurance: should your policy include painting the house and cleaning the gutters? Should your policy include oil changes and new wiper blades?
You ask for it, you should pay for it; only in this system, you ask for it and everybody else pays for it.
The issue is that we should make health care costs painfully apparent to consumers instead of hiding them under blanket coverage policies. People need to understand that whining about the costs of insurance premiums is the wrong thing to whine about.
"Think about homeowner insurance and car insurance: should your policy include painting the house and cleaning the gutters? Should your policy include oil changes and new wiper blades?" galt
This is where you lost me. "Cleaning of the gutters"? What are you talking about?
"The issue is that we should make health care costs painfully apparent to consumers instead of hiding them under blanket coverage policies. People need to understand that whining about the costs of insurance premiums is the wrong thing to whine about." galt
Here's a little reminder, mr galt. Health care cost are painfully apparent. They're not hiding "...under blanket coverage policies."
Who do you think you're talking to here? A 2 year old?
"People need to understand that whining about the costs of insurance premiums is the wrong thing to whine about." galt
Well. So wise. Anyone with a catastrophic medical problem within their family can surely agree with this.
But it's instructive. Paying several hundred dollars a month and not being covered is something we should just SHUT UP about. Fuck you.
You avoided the issue t-man.
As a health-insurance purchaser, the only cost you see are a) the cost of the premium for said insurance, and b) the co-pays and non-covered goods and services.
e.g., you go to your doctor for a checkup and pay $20 co-pay. The insurance company picks up the other $200+ for that office visit. The REAL cost of that visit is $220, not the $20 you paid. The other $200 is hidden from you by your insurance company.
Your premiums are your wager against the insurance company that you WILL have a catastrophic problem. The insurer is betting that you won't, and that enough others like you won't so the premiums collected cover the few catastrophic events in the pool of insured people. (See also Risk Management.)
The house and car insurance allusion is comparing people's attitude toward various insurances. If you insisted that your home insurer pay for house painting and gutter cleaning, your premium would be much more costly. If your car insurer paid for your oil changes and wiper blades, your premium would be much more costly. The premiums would cost more because the insurer is paying out more.
On the other hand, since your house and car insurers don't pay for normal maintenance, you are painfully aware of what such maintenance costs.
Likewise, if your health insurance didn't pay for normal maintenance items such as doctor visits, checkups, physicals, minor prescriptions and procedures, you would be painfully aware of what such items cost and more likely to shop around for less expensive goods and service providers.
That increases competition between providers leading to both better service offerings and more efficient costs. You shop around for the best deal on oil changes for your car or do the job yourself to save money, don't you?
BTW, if you know you will have certain maintenance costs, you will be more likely to save up cash to pay them. Your savings allow banks to make loans to other folks. Businesses will borrow your saved money from the bank to invest in production of wealth.
Saved money creates wealth. Saved money that is taken from you and given away by the government ("spreading the wealth") destroys both wealth and the "seed corn" for future wealth creation.
"... BTW, if you know you will have certain maintenance costs, you will be more likely to save up cash to pay them. ..." -me
If you're really smart, you will set up sinking funds to pay for those predictable costs.
In a business that requires production capital assets (e.g., printing presses, machine tools), the businessman knows those items have useful life expectancies: they use that information to calculate how much of their profit needs to be set aside into sinking funds that accumulate to the future expected replacement costs of those capital items.
Ignorant people and the cynical populist provocateurs who rabble-rouse them see such investing and preservation of wealth as greedy. They're wrong: it's rational self-interest at its best.
"In a business that requires production capital assets (e.g., printing presses, machine tools), the businessman knows those items have useful life expectancies" galt
Health care demonstrates a highly more unpredictable and more expensive "sinking cost" than machinery. Likewise invested pensions. Your model is rudimentary, galt. You're pretending.
"Ignorant people and the cynical populist provocateurs who rabble-rouse them see such investing and preservation of wealth as greedy. They're wrong: it's rational self-interest at its best." mr galt
What's rational about 'self interest'? We take of each other or we don't. Self interest does not a society make, mr galt.
"... Self interest does not a society make, mr galt. " - t-man
Certainly not these days when the thug with the biggest gang gets to define the rules of society.
"Certainly not these days when the thug with the biggest gang gets to define the rules of society." galt
Exactly.
Post a Comment
<< Home