Tag Archives: Request for Admissions

Philip J Berg, Filing October 21, 2008, Immediate Order, Request for Admissions, Obama not Eligible, DNC must replace Obama

Here is the main part of Philip J Berg’s filing today, Tuesday, October 21, 2008. The complete filing will be available later:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, ::

Plaintiff

 

:

vs.

 

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-04083-

RBS

:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :

BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a :

BARRY OBAMA, a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a :

BARRY DUNHAM, THE :

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL :

COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL :

ELECTION COMMISSION AND :

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE, :

Defendants

 

:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE ORDER DEEMING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS, BARACK

HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

ADMITTED

NOW COMES

 

the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] and

respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion and issue an

immediate Order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, served upon Defendants,

Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and The Democratic National Committee

[hereinafter “DNC”] on September 15, 2008 “Admitted” on the following Grounds:

1. Plaintiff filed this action on August 21, 2008 requesting Declaratory and

Injunctive Relief, as Obama does not meet the qualifications or eligibility to run

for and/or serve as the President of the United States.

2. On or about September 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited

Discovery, Extensive Discovery and Depositions of Obama and Howard Dean,

Chairman of the DNC and the appointment of a Special Master. Defendants

never Responded to or Opposed said Motion. This Motion is still pending.

3. On September 15, 2008, Defendants, Obama and the DNC, were served

with discovery by Plaintiff for Request for Admissions and Request for

Production of Documents. Defendants’ responses were due within thirty [30]

days.

4. Defendants, Obama and the DNC did not Answer the Complaint, failed to

turn over proof of Obama’s citizenship status and instead filed a Motion to

Dismiss on September 24, 2008. Defendants claimed Plaintiff did not have

standing to bring this action and failed to state a claim which relief could be

granted.

5. This Honorable Court requested Plaintiff to file any Responses in

Opposition to Defendants Motion within five [5] days, that being on or before

September 29, 2008 and Plaintiff complied by filing a Response in Opposition to

Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

6. On or about Monday, October 6, 2008, Defendants Obama and the DNC’s

Attorney called Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff to agree to Staying discovery

pending a decision on their Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff declined as Obama’s

citizenship status is of National security as he is running for President of the

United States.

7. In the afternoon of October 6, 2008, Defendants, Obama and DNC, filed a

Motion for Protective Order staying all discovery pending the Court’s decision on

their Motion to Dismiss. In their Motion Defendants acknowledged receipt of the

Requests for Admissions.

8. On or about October 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition to

Defendants Motion for Protective Order.

9. Defendants have failed to timely Answer Plaintiff’s Requests for

Admissions, which were served on September 15, 2008 and Defendants Answers

were due thirty [30] days thereafter. Therefore, these 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),

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).

10. No order staying discovery has been entered in this forum. Because the

proceedings in this matter have not been stayed, and because the Defendants,

Obama and DNC, failed to timely Answer Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions,

they have been deemed admitted in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 36(a).

11. Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted his case. Accordingly, Plaintiff

requests an Order deeming Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions to Defendant

Obama numbered 1-56 and to Defendant DNC numbered 1-27 Admitted.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 21, 2008 s/ Philip J. Berg

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney in

 

Pro Se

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Identification No. 09867

(610) 825-3134″

Philip J Berg’s website:

http://obamacrimes.com