The October Surprise

[Deanh]

That's what you are proposing Dumb-ass....all you liberals still like to whine about the 2000 election....

not whining at all....not liberal at all either...just objective....you are the IDIOT that stated to change the rules AFTER the results....I suggested change them BEFORE...is that hard to fathom Nappie? personally couldn't give a rats about 2000....but reflect on the current status of the country and shoulder some of the blame for YOUR choice.....remember I can't vote, but in my eyes the country made a mistake not ONCE , but TWICE.....

[napfirst]

maybe, but trying to perfectly understand/ comprehend isn't helped in any way or form by your dumbass posts attempting to link Obama to seemingly frowned upon affiliates...I don't profess at ALL to be totally informed, I leave that up to people ( unlike you ) that have common sense such as Len A, Blackhorse to name a couple that are obviously well read and informed, i am but a surface scratcher....but I don't post MEANINGLESS bullshit propaganda posts trying to link pseudo Communists to certain people because they are wearing a damn button.....AND I respect most peoples veiws as I am basically non opinionated and OBJECTIVE about whom would be the best for the COUNTRY....not brinwashed by my own specific needs/ desires/ beleifs/ racism/ or bias....

Meaningless to you, but that's your opinion and you are entitled to that, but obama's past is an important issue to me, I know people like you who support him want all that to go away...so you think if you kill the messenger, the message will disappear....NOT.

[napfirst]

not whining at all....not liberal at all either...just objective....you are the IDIOT that stated to change the rules AFTER the results....I suggested change them BEFORE...is that hard to fathom Nappie? personally couldn't give a rats about 2000....but reflect on the current status of the country and shoulder some of the blame for YOUR choice.....remember I can't vote, but in my eyes the country made a mistake not ONCE , but TWICE.....

That's right you can't vote!....when I said change the rules before, I was referencing the 2000 election and all liberals that were whinning about the electorial college after that election.......I guess that went over your head, sorry next time I'll type slower.

[napfirst]

not brinwashed by my own specific needs/ desires/ beleifs/ racism/ or bias....

 

What is this suppose to mean?

[Deanh]

Meaningless to you, but that's your opinion and you are entitled to that, but obama's past is an important issue to me, I know people like you who support him want all that to go away...so you think if you kill the messenger, the message will disappear....NOT.

heres YOUR quandry...I DO NOT support either candidate, i'm just an outside observer..but for someone to base an opinion on scriptures worthy of the National Enquirer completely deflates any respect I have of THAT particular persons objectivity......so keep posting, say hello to Bat Boy when you see him.....

[Len_A]

Dean,

 

If the election went to the candidate that got the most votes, then they could just pick the populous states and blow off the rest. Winning pretty much all the votes in say California, would mean you could ignore about half the other states. Or, you could target just the ten largest cities in the US. Surely you could come up with a plan that would really reward those cities if you didn't need a single other vote.

With the strategy of pursuing the states with the most electoral college votes (and the fact that most of them are an all-or-nothing proposition), is it really that different from what you're suggesting would happen under a popular vote system? Don't the candidates really go after the states with the most electoral college votes, and ignore the the low population states?

[Deanh]

What is this suppose to mean?

hey you keep posting the dribble that you so obviously beleive in ver batum....lesse, communist ties...NOT, Muslim ties....NOT whats next ....crossdressing?????? you beleive the specualtive exagerated media...I'll draw my own conclusions, not twist and make up absolute BS...same gos for the ( in comparison ) trivial amounts of crap posted about McCain and Palin ....

[Deanh]

What is this suppose to mean?

look up objectivity.....you have already obviously made your decision and are now attempting to sway others with mindless media dribble.....hey, I don't criticize any ones decision to vote either way....but to post some of the sensatialist crap that you have leads me to start questioning your ability to make a rational judgement, regardless of your electoral preference, i would say the same if you were posting crap capable of dis-solving grey matter about McCain........

[Imawhosure]

but then EVERY vote is important......answer..NO campaign trails or townhall meetings, country targeted as a whole, no singling out...just televised debates and unrehearsed questionaires...will never happen here due to the need for over the top campaigning. But imagine the use the $ put in as contributions ( and POOL them as well...NO favouritism ) could be put too......wishful thinking I know, but this has turned almost into a bigger spectacle than the half time show in the Superbowl,,,,

 

DeanH,

 

The number 1 reason it is like it is would surprise you, possibly. You see, if we went by popular vote, we could end up with someone who lost 70% of the vote as President. How is that? Well, if you had 8 people running like it happens in many other countrys, and 1 got 30% of the vote, and the other 7 each got 10%, the President would then have had 70% of the people NOT voting for him or her, and sit in the Whitehouse.

 

Now I DO agree with you there does need to be reform in the system, and here is the solution. After I tell you the solution, I will tell you why a CERTAIN PARTY will never let it happen, lolol.

 

SOLUTION---------->If we keep the electoral college, that is a GOOD thing. But at this moment, there are only 2 states (I believe) that will divide their electors of the college by the percentage of popular vote each candidate receives. All the rest of them is winner take all. Winner take all is the problem, not the electoral college itself. Just like those two states, all the states should divide their electors by the amount cast for the candidate. In other words---------->it would almost be like using popular vote, but the President would still need a certain amount of electoral votes to be declared the winner, which means that nobody could sneak in by financing multiple candidates to run phoney campaigns so as their constituency could get them the most votes because the rest are split.

 

Now why would that NOT happen unless we demand it, lolol-------------->Because certain states with huge amounts of electoral votes (usually the states with gargantuan citys or multiple large citys) will lose clout. I keep hearing about the 2000 election, and if done my way, Gore woulda won. But, you gotta remember this little footnote---------->if it was done my way, Democrats would not get ALL the votes in California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. This block is almost 100 electoral votes, and it is a give me. (it might be even more than that) It also means the same thing you said Dean, that candidates could NOT ignore any state, because the more they could sway, the more electoral votes they could get. No more red/blue states. Politicians couldn't BUY votes by promising a state something subliminally.........like building a pipeline, or giving money to automakers. This is why promises put on by people running for President are geared towards states with huge electoral votes. After all, they only have to get 1 more vote in those states to get all their electoral votes in the college.

 

To me, that is insidious!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deanh]

With the strategy of pursuing the states with the most electoral college votes (and the fact that most of them are an all-or-nothing proposition), is it really that different from what you're suggesting would happen under a popular vote system? Don't the candidates really go after the states with the most electoral college votes, and ignore the the low population states?

thankyou Len....some sense....yes I semi agree, the whole process has to made simpler and more accountable, fact is its obvious from the intensity of their campaigning which dstaes DO in fact hold advantages....thus my thoughts ( and yep, Nappie is flaming the hell out of me and soiling his diapers...LOL ) about nixxing the whole laborious trail debaucle and just utilizing national television coverage....and if one pooled all the campaign contributions ( some which I would say border on bribes ) then its a level playing field and thus less likely for sign offs on bridges to no-where and wasted tax dollars....and yes this is just an OPINION I am putting out tso i expect rebutes and possible insults from some earmarked few......

[Deanh]

DeanH,

 

The number 1 reason it is like it is would surprise you, possibly. You see, if we went by popular vote, we could end up with someone who lost 70% of the vote as President. How is that? Well, if you had 8 people running like it happens in many other countrys, and 1 got 30% of the vote, and the other 7 each got 10%, the President would then have had 70% of the people NOT voting for him or her, and sit in the Whitehouse.

 

Now I DO agree with you there does need to be reform in the system, and here is the solution. After I tell you the solution, I will tell you why a CERTAIN PARTY will never let it happen, lolol.

 

SOLUTION---------->If we keep the electoral college, that is a GOOD thing. But at this moment, there are only 2 states (I believe) that will divide their electors of the college by the percentage of popular vote each candidate receives. All the rest of them is winner take all. Winner take all is the problem, not the electoral college itself. Just like those two states, all the states should divide their electors by the amount cast for the candidate. In other words---------->it would almost be like using popular vote, but the President would still need a certain amount of electoral votes to be declared the winner, which means that nobody could sneak in by financing multiple candidates to run phoney campaigns so as their constituency could get them the most votes because the rest are split.

 

Now why would that NOT happen unless we demand it, lolol-------------->Because certain states with huge amounts of electoral votes (usually the states with gargantuan citys or multiple large citys) will lose clout. I keep hearing about the 2000 election, and if done my way, Gore woulda won. But, you gotta remember this little footnote---------->if it was done my way, Democrats would not get ALL the votes in California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. This block is almost 100 electoral votes, and it is a give me. (it might be even more than that) It also means the same thing you said Dean, that candidates could NOT ignore any state, because the more they could sway, the more electoral votes they could get. No more red/blue states. Politicians couldn't BUY votes by promising a state something subliminally.........like building a pipeline, or giving money to automakers. This is why promises put on by people running for President are geared towards states with huge electoral votes. After all, they only have to get 1 more vote in those states to get all their electoral votes in the college.

 

To me, that is insidious!!!!!!!!!!!

eeeek....sorry if I have opened up a can of worms with a seemingly innocent opinion....just seems so damn overblown, out of control, confusing and need I say GROSSLY overindulgent. The $ are mindblowing.....

[mettech]

so true....but do you not think the Florida FIASCO had a little to do with Gore getting robbed....swear...i wish we would just go with whom gets the damn most votes....VOTER REFORM I SAY!

 

A very,,,, very bad idea..

 

Each State must have equality with its votes..

 

And don't get rid of the electoral vote.... It protects the country from extremest and idiots.

Our Fore Fathers knew how gullible the general public is.

[Deanh]

A very,,,, very bad idea..

 

Each State must have equality with its votes..

 

And don't get rid of the electoral vote.... It protects the country from extremest and idiots.

Our Fore Fathers knew how gullible the general public is.

gullible...i'll say...hell i know of one guy in particular......media hs him wrapped around their finger.....

[xr7g428]

Dean, I will try one more time. If it came down to a popular vote, then candidates would not even need to run in all but the few largest states. I am going to use a ridiculous example so we can all agree that we are talking hypothetical here...

 

Lets say that you ran on a policy that said you were going to move all of the people out of the fly over country and turn it into a big buffalo preserve. This might sell well to the eco fanatics in California. And we are going to relocate those people to Michigan and New York to drive the prices of real estate back up. In fact, when the government confiscates all of the oil and coal in the preserve, it will provide so much money that they will be able to give $500,000 to every family in the target states to offset the effects of driving up the real estate. Throw in a trillion or so in earmarks, and there you have it.

 

The founding fathers were afraid that the politicians would go for votes in the cities, and screw the farmers, or visa versa. They could already see the difference between the industrial north, and the agricultural south. The electoral college meant that you could not win just by dominating a specific area. Basically you couldn't win by by winning big in one place, you had to win, by at least a little bit, all over the place.

[Deanh]

Dean, I will try one more time. If it came down to a popular vote, then candidates would not even need to run in all but the few largest states. I am going to use a ridiculous example so we can all agree that we are talking hypothetical here...

 

Lets say that you ran on a policy that said you were going to move all of the people out of the fly over country and turn it into a big buffalo preserve. This might sell well to the eco fanatics in California. And we are going to relocate those people to Michigan and New York to drive the prices of real estate back up. In fact, when the government confiscates all of the oil and coal in the preserve, it will provide so much money that they will be able to give $500,000 to every family in the target states to offset the effects of driving up the real estate. Throw in a trillion or so in earmarks, and there you have it.

 

The founding fathers were afraid that the politicians would go for votes in the cities, and screw the farmers, or visa versa. They could already see the difference between the industrial north, and the agricultural south. The electoral college meant that you could not win just by dominating a specific area. Basically you couldn't win by by winning big in one place, you had to win, by at least a little bit, all over the place.

thankyou, I was kind of under that beleif this just kinda backs it up and answers additional questions....I just wish there was a simpler less convoluted, CHEAPER way to garner the final result....this is just crazy!

[Noah Harbinger]

Political tides are like a pendulum. If we go to far one way, then the arm of that pendulum swings back. We have seen it over, and over again in our lifetimes, and it will happen again for sure.

 

I'd say it's more like this:

 

 

... swinging back and forth, but generally trending towards liberalism, with the parties (shown in red & blue) following this trend.

[RaZor]

If I remember correctly there have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. With the Electoral College (EC) system, the goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

 

In reality, the EC is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, which has happened before. Under the EC system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state.

 

Therein lies the problem that the U.S. presidential election is currently the only local, state, or federal election that does not appoint to the office the candidate receiving the majority of the popular votes made by the people.

 

What MOST people do not realize is that as it turns out there is no federal law that requires an EC elector to vote according to the results of their state's elections results (the vote of the people). In response to this, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote, or the popular vote. However, it remains that there are really only 538 citizens (the "electors") of the EC who actually cast their votes that determines who the president will be -- even though there are (historically) up to 90 million citizens (may top 100 million this time) that cast their votes for president.

 

These electors are nominated by his or her state party committee in very similar ways that is used by some states in the "caucus" method used in the primaries. If I remember right, many of you guys thought that caucus' were not a true (democratic) method of determining the winner of a primary, right? And yet that is essentially the same system used by the EC. For those that believe in conspiracy theories, which is easier - unethically influencing (buying or whatever) 538 "electors" - or 100 million voters?

 

The key is this part, a vote for the candidates for Pres and VP named on the ballot is really just a vote for the electors (of the EC) and that is the case in 48 states (as has been pointed out above) - - by what is known as the "winner-take-all system." There are two states (Maine and Nebraska) that use a different system known as the "district system."

 

In ME & NE, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts results, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.

 

Many would say (and have said) that in regard to '"winner-take-all' states that this system works and should be retained as most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision (which is entirely legal).

 

The problem with the incentives created by the EC is that what is obvious every election cycle is that many states are effectively ignored by the candidates, as they are seen as non-competitive (or that have much fewer population numbers - so just exert your effort based on population such as the big cities etc). Obama may be the first candidate in a long time to break this mold in that his campaign started grass-roots organizations in a sizable number of states that were previously deemed "red states" and, apparently, that is going to have an impact on the outcome of the election. It is McCain that hasn't even bothered with visiting or actively campaigning in many states.

 

But is the EC representative of a true democracy – one that empowers the people? I suggest that with our historically low percentage of citizens that actually vote, the EC is the system that may be at the root of the problem. So what can be done to remove some the apathy surrounding the privilege to cast your vote for the people who will represent the 'best' interest of the country?

 

Rather than accept an EC system, that can distort popular will and take most states out of play in electing our president, maybe we should have a direct election of the president with a majority requirement.

 

Ima contends that the EC should be kept, just change all the states to the district system (eliminate the winner-take-all). However, the EC, or 538 citizens (instead of the actual number of voters nationwide) would still be the actual people that would elect the president. Remember there is no law that requires them follow the voters wishes – is that a democracy? Why would those 538 electors even be needed then? That doesn't even make sense. Can you imagine the upheaval of the populace if that (electors cast their votes contrary of the results of their state/district) occurred on a grand scale – especially in a hotly contended and emotional election such as this time? I think that there exist far too much polarization in this country already - that scenario could really cause REAL problems.

 

So what about the possibility of a scenario that Ima fears: "which means that nobody could sneak in by financing multiple candidates to run phoney campaigns so as their constituency could get them the most votes because the rest are split"? No problemo. It is actually very simple. The Constitution could simply permit other mechanisms, such as instant-runoff voting, a more efficient, uncomplicated, and inexpensive method used in several nations.

 

Rather than select their favorite (and only one) choice, voters would be allowed to indicate their runoff choices by rank-ordering the candidates: first choice, second choice, third choice - and so on. Any candidate with a majority of first choices is the winner.

 

If there is no clear (majority) winner, the weakest candidates are eliminated. Ballots count for each voter's top-ranked candidate still in the race—the first choice, if not eliminated, but otherwise the first remaining runoff choice. Rounds continue until there is a majority winner. Ballot machines can handle this quickly and efficiently. Even in rural areas where votes are counted manually, this would not pose a difficult task. I'll bet that everyone has at one time or another been asked to rank their choices as to their favorites. A child can do it.

 

And I might mention that it would help eliminate the hacking of voting machines such as occurred in a recent election (in Florida -- and the possibility still exists in some states like Ohio with certain voting machines) where a candidate ended up with negative 1700 votes because the memory tabulation card had an executable file on it that every time someone voted for Gore - it recorded a negative vote.

 

Isn't it interesting that no other political bodies (no foreign nations or even our own local entities - states or cities) think enough of the EC system to use it for their elections?

 

Many have posted (numerous times) on this forum and we all have heard people who think that our system allows ONLY a choice between "the lesser of two evils" (or some other disgruntled phrasing regarding our choices of who is on the ballot). Well, it AIN'T ever going to change – unless we eliminate the EC. While we are careful, justifiably so I might add, about rewriting the Constitution, but the so-called reasons for having the EC no longer exist and the EC system is not one of those Founding Fathers' notions worth protecting. Ask yourself (or research) what happens when there is not a clear winner with the EC system - in other words, what happens when no candidate gets 270 EC votes. What happens then? And that is a real possibility if we ever had a very strong third party candidate -- as there still would be those mindless voters who vote party -- instead of the best man/woman for the office.

 

The winner-take-all system is unfair to third-party candidates. Remember Ross Perot? If I remember correctly, he won right around 20% of the popular vote, and yet he was rewarded with zero (0) EC votes.

 

How can a third party candidate EVER be elected? They can't (the odds are not very good) for the most part. Many think that there really isn't much difference between the two parties and that neither one is really concerned with the "will of the people". Well, if there exists a system (the EC) that basically prohibits a third (or even a fourth) party candidate from REALLY ever having a chance – then there really is not any vehicle for a third party candidate to bring the two parties into line with the wishes of the people – or that will provide the incentive for people to get involved in "governing by the people for the people" – and VOTE! We have had elections where less than a third of the citizens who could have voted (have the right) – actually voted and decided who was president/vice president. Is that good? I don't think so.

 

Now I am sure that some of you are going to say that the instant-runoff system is too complicated. Oh, please. It's not at all. It is definitely easier to understand than the convoluted EC. I'll bet that there are many that do NOT realize that the EC electors are not even legally mandated to vote according to the election results of the people of their state.

 

With the instant-runoff, a voter simply selects the candidate he wants to win, his second choice, his third choice, and so on. The candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated and second choices on those ballots are counted and the result is that we protect ourselves from electing a "loser" president and at the same time hedge against a possibility that the EC electors could be influenced to vote against the wishes of the people.

 

"Majority rule" is a basic tenet of democracy. The EC fails this test. I say it's time to send a message to American voters that it is their votes, and their votes alone, that count when electing our leaders. Maybe then we can be the democracy that we like to put ourselves on a pedestal as - an example to the rest of the world (which includes 'attempts' to spread it around the globe).

[fmccap]

"Majority rule" is a basic tenet of democracy. The EC fails this test. I say it's time to send a message to American voters that it is their votes, and their votes alone, that count when electing our leaders. Maybe then we can be the democracy that we like to put ourselves on a pedestal as - an example to the rest of the world (which includes 'attempts' to spread it around the globe).

Only problem is that we are not(or at least not supposed to be) a Democracy. This country was founded a Republic, maybe the problem is that government has been in education to long and have finally succeeded in dumbing people down.

[NickF1011]

Only problem is that we are not(or at least not supposed to be) a Democracy. This country was founded a Republic,

 

Yeah, plenty of people seem to forget that part.

[RaZor]

Yes, of course you are right as technically we are indeed a republic in that a republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority from violating the rights of the individual and provides for an Executive branch, a Legislative branch, a Judicial branch, and provides inherent individual rights as set forth in the Constitution.

 

So please explain in your own words how my post (and suggested plan) above does not provide a better solution for a republic -- in that it protects all the citizens in that the authority of the (above listed) branches are derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them - as determined by the vote of the people (not electors that are appointed to the EC and NOT by the people - remembering that the electors have the right to cast their votes even against the wishes of the people) to maintain a government in which supreme power resides in the body of its citizens who are entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to and on behalf of them - according to the law of the land.

[NickF1011]

Yes, of course you are right as technically we are indeed a republic in that a republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority from violating the rights of the individual and provides for an Executive branch, a Legislative branch, a Judicial branch, and provides inherent individual rights as set forth in the Constitution.

 

So please explain in your own words how my post (and suggested plan) above does not provide a better solution for a republic -- in that it protects all the citizens in that the authority of the (above listed) branches are derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them - as determined by the vote of the people (not electors that are appointed to the EC and NOT by the people - remembering that the electors have the right to cast their votes even against the wishes of the people) to maintain a government in which supreme power resides in the body of its citizens who are entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to and on behalf of them - according to the law of the land.

 

We already have one branch of government that is directly elected by the people: the Legislative Branch. That is your check against the Executive and Judicial Branches, which are not directly elected. Yes, the states choose the electors, and they can also so choose to pass laws that require those electors to cast their vote with the popular vote of the state, as many have done. So again, there are more checks and balances at the local level.

[Ron W.]

The Constitution holds the government in check

 

 

Sometimes.

[sprinter]

Obama in Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother? Could there be another reason such as searching for a real birth certificate? Obama and the DNC failed to answer the Berg petition within the 30 day period. By law he has admitted to all the allegations in the Civil Action filed by Berg.

 

Hillary’s is going to win. Never underestimate a Clinton.

 

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/038...%20Admitted.pdf

 

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 :

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.

Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an Expedited Ruling on Plaintiff’s

Motion for an Order deeming Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon

Defendants, Obama and DNC, on September 15, 2008 Admitted. Having reviewed

Plaintiff’s Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________

Hon. R. Barclay Surrick

United States District Court Judge

For the Eastern District of PA

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 1 of 8

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 EXPEDITED RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION DEEMING PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS - ADMITTED

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

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

Expedited Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion deeming Admitted Requests for Admissions that

were served upon Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and the

Democratic National Committee [hereinafter “DNC”], on September 15, 2008 on the

following grounds:

1. In order to be eligible and qualified to run for and hold the Office of the

President of the United States you must be a “natural born” citizen. United States

Constitution, Article II, Section I.

2. There are many questions into the citizenship status of Obama. Obama

claims he was born in two [2] separate hospitals in Hawaii. Plaintiff has

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 2 of 8

discovered not only was Obama born in Kenya; he became a “natural” citizen of

Indonesia upon his step-father, Lolo Soetoro signing a legal governmental birth

acknowledgment “acknowledging” Obama as his son and/or adopting Obama. At

this time, Obama’s name was changed and he became Barry Soetoro, an

Indonesian citizen.

3. Defendants Obama and the DNC have been requested by Plaintiff for

proof of Obama’s citizenship status, which has been refused.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 3 of 8

8. 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.

9. On or about Monday, October 6, 2008, Defendants, Obama and the

DNC’s, Attorney called Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff to agree to stay 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.

10. 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.

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

Defendants Motion for Protective Order.

12. 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).

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 4 of 8

13. 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).

14. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for an Order deeming Plaintiff’s Request for

Admissions – Admitted concurrently with this Motion for an Expedited Ruling on

the pending Motions.

15. The Presidential Election is November 4, 2008. The issues are of National

Importance. If Obama is not eligible to run for and/or serve as United States

President allowing Obama to continue his campaign and not removing him from

the ballot is against Public Policy.

16. Plaintiff as well as all other Democratic United States citizens will be

deprived their right to cast their vote for an eligible Democratic Presidential

Nominee and if elected, who can serve as President of the United States.

17. If the Motion is not heard and decided immediately, there will not be any

time left in order to replace Obama on the Presidential ballot with an eligible

Democratic Presidential candidate.

18. If Obama is elected as President of the United States and allowed to serve

as the United States President, we will have a Constitutional crisis. If this is

allowed, it will change the United States Constitution without proper due process

of law and it will set precedence which likely will cause further variances from

the United States Constitution without proper due process of law. Plaintiff and all

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 5 of 8

citizens of the United States will no longer be afforded the protections guaranteed

by the United States Constitution.

19. Defendants will not be prejudiced by an Expedited Ruling; however,

Plaintiff and the citizens of the United States will be severely damaged, if this

matter is not resolved immediately.

20. It is in the best interest of the parties and the efficient administration of justice

to learn this Court's view of Plaintiff’s Motions as soon as possible.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant an Expedited

Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order deeming Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions,

served upon Defendants September 15, 2008, 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

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 6 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an

Expedited Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion Deeming Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions –

Admitted was served upon Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”]

and The Democratic National Committee [hereinafter “DNC”], via electronic filing on

the ECF System, this 21 day of October st 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

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 7 of 8

The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

999 E. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463 In pro se

Served via regular mail postage fully prepaid

/s Philip J. Berg

_____________________________

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

Attorney for Plaintiff

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

(610) 825-3134

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 8 of 8

[NickF1011]

Obama in Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother? Could there be another reason such as searching for a real birth certificate? Obama and the DNC failed to answer the Berg petition within the 30 day period. By law he has admitted to all the allegations in the Civil Action filed by Berg.

 

Give us a break.

[Ron W.]

2. There are many questions into the citizenship status of Obama. Obama

claims he was born in two [2] separate hospitals in Hawaii. Plaintiff has

Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 22 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 2 of 8

discovered not only was Obama born in Kenya; he became a “natural” citizen of

Indonesia upon his step-father, Lolo Soetoro signing a legal governmental birth

acknowledgment “acknowledging” Obama as his son and/or adopting Obama. At

this time, Obama’s name was changed and he became Barry Soetoro, an

Indonesian citizen.3. Defendants Obama and the DNC have been requested by Plaintiff for

proof of Obama’s citizenship status, which has been refused.4. 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.

 

And this person is still running because? The truth needs to be found now and if indeed he is not a natural born American citizen get him off the damn ticket.