Plaintiffs Obtain Extension of Time to Answer Obama/Congress Motion to Dismiss (cont -eligibility)

Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint/petition.

Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

The current defense motion to dismiss the complaint/petition was returnable Friday, July 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Monday, July 6, 2009.

The defendants took over 4 months to file their motion. I was only given 2 weeks to respond.

Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a 2-week extension of time to answer the defendants' motion to dismiss.

I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.

I will file our opposition papers at least 14 days prior to the new motion day, and the defendants shall file their reply papers, if any, at least seven calendar days prior to August 3, 2009.

I know that many of you have been posting on this blog your thoughts and analysis on how we can defeat the defendants' motion.

Your input is highly appreciated. I am asking that you continue to give me your ideas in this public blog. I encourage the open exchange of ideas so that we may all arrive at the best answer.

Only strategy and personal matters will be treated confidentially. I will appreciate that if you do have a point you want to make, you provide a citation to support what you are saying, if a citation exists.

If you do not have a citation, still make your argument. I will consider all comments and choose which points to incorporate into our opposition brief.

The points to research and comment on are standing and immunity. For a full reading of how the defendants are using these defenses to try to convince the judicial branch of government not to address the issue of Obama's Article II "natural born Citizen" eligibility, you may clique on the link in this blog and view the defendants' brief that they filed in support of their motion to dismiss.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would attack the presumed connection between procedure and standing. I would also argue that the absence of legal/legistlative recourse is not a valid excuse and permission slip for continued violation of the law. The courts should be made to understand that our system of checks and balances were established primarily for this reason... to prevent one or more branches of government from overreaching.

By placing procedure over compliance, the courts by law would be implicating itself in the continued violation of the law.

As citizens, we ALL have "standing", because we can all be affected by the defendant's violation of the law.

As for immunity, NOBODY is immune from our laws except those who are not citizens... and even then, there are limits.

Does a private citizen who witnesses a crime against another have the authority to execute a citizen's arrest if the victim is incapacitated as a result of the crime?

What are the "procedures" for a citizens arrest? Any? Or is it simply the authority for one person to detain another when a violation of the law is observed until the proper authorities can take charge?

Are there any examples in our constitution or laws that illustrate the premise that only those with legal standing are authorized to report/pursue the violation of a law?

The court should be made to understand that by ruling for the defendants, they will be setting a precedent that only those who are directly affected by a crime, or are in a position of authority to "PREVENT" the crime are allowed to report/pursue violations.

What would such a precedence do to crime prevention/prosecution efforts such as Crime Stoppers... or Neighborhood Watch programs... etc.????

When a potential violation of the law is brought to the attention of our executive and judicial authorities, they are first bound by law and oath to ensure that the violation of law itself is NOT OCCURRING or IS STOPPED.
Prosecution of the offender(s) is a separate matter!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.