⇓LINK⇓
A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil case. In the U.S. federal court system, they are governed by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A request for admissions is a list of questions which are similar in some respects to interrogatories, but different in form and purpose. Each "question" is in the form of a declarative statement which the answering party must then either admit, deny, or state in detail why he or she can neither admit nor deny the truthfulness of the statement (e.g. for lack of knowledge, etc.). This effectively puts the admissions in the form of true-false questions.
[...]
Rule 36(a)(1)[2] limits the types of requests to be limited to (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents. However, the rule places no limits on the number of requests which may be made of either litigant. State court rules, however, may be stricter than this.
Notably, under Rule 36(a)(3),[2] requests for admissions are automatically deemed admitted in U.S. federal courts if the opponent fails to timely respond or object. The opponent bears the burden of moving for relief from its failure to respond and providing a legitimate excuse for why it did not respond earlier.
Some U.S. states have reversed the burden as set forth in the federal rules, such that the party propounding the RFAs must follow up with a motion to have RFAs deemed admitted.
Request for admissions Hereinafter a statute, ordinance, rule, law, or command will be labeled "law".
1. The burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff.
2. An allegation is merely a claim.
3. An opinion is merely a claim.
4. Defendant can not violate law that does not apply.
5. Alleging a violation of law does not prove the law applies.
6. If a law can not be proven to apply, then Defendant can not violate such a law.
7. This writer's opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese. This opinion is not evidence. Likewise Plaintiff's opinion that any law applies is not evidence proving any law applies.
8. By alleging a violation of a law, the prosecutor is concurrently claiming by implication and assumption, that the law applies.
9. A claim is not a fact in a court of law until proven with evidence and testimony.
10. Likewise an opinion is merely another claim requiring evidence and testimony.
11. By alleging a violation of a law, a bureaucrat is concurrently claiming by implication and assumption, that the law applies.
12. Claiming evidence that the law applies is because the law claims it applies is circular logic.
13. In order for the law's alleged command that the law applies to have authority, first, the law must apply.
14. Failure or refusal to present evidence that a law applies or failure or refusal to admit no evidence that the law applies is a violation of the
Brady Rule.
15. The United State's Declaration of Independence, stating in these words, "
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,", claims the purpose of governments are to secure individual rights.
16. There are no collective rights without individual rights.
17. If no individual in a collective can be proven to have suffered damage caused by the Defendant, then the collective has not suffered damage either.
18. Invoking the court's jurisdiction requires standing.
19. Standing requires an
Injury-in-fact. The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.20. Standing requires a
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.21. Standing requires
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.22. Prosecutors (government plaintiffs) often allege violations of law without alleging injury-in-fact.
23. By the court's own rules, because the government plaintiffs do not allege any injury-in-fact, the government plaintiffs do not have standing to invoke the court's jurisdiction.
24. Failure or refusal to identify with specificity, what the actual harms alleged is a fraud upon the court.
