Posted on 09/21/2009 10:11:47 PM PDT by Red Steel
-Snip-
PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, to be supplemented by filing Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint on or before October 2, 2009
Come now the Plaintiffs with this their Preliminary
Response toDefendants’ September 4, 2009, Document 56
Motion to Dismiss (with reservation of rights to Respond
further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
on or before Friday, October 2, 2009).
POLITICAL RELATIVITY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL ABSOLUTES: IS THE
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE VIABLE AS A MEANS TO
EVADECOMPLIANCE WITH UNVARIABLE STANDARDS?
Fundamentally, this case comes down to a single
bifurcated question question: (1A) does the constitution
mean what it says when it lays down absolute parameters,
such as the age and citizenship qualifications to be
President, and (1B) to whom does the investigation and
enforcement of this constitutional provision: to the
Congress, the People, or can the President get by merely
asserting his qualifications without presenting evidence
which would be competent as Summary Judgment
(admissible) evidence under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure? The Plaintiffs have brought their
complaint as a matter of first impression to ask this
Court to determine, find, hold, and rule that the
investigation and enforcement of this right belongs to
the people, even members of a discrete and insular
minority of the people, even if this group lacks
majoritarian political power. Plaintiffs respond to the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ask this Court to
rule, pursuant to the First and Ninth Amendments that
they may sue to enforce constitutional absolutes, such
as the constitutional requirements for President of the
United States. Plaintiffs assert an inalienable,
reserved right to sue for Constitutional conformity in
this case even though they concede that the Defendants
have shown that primary, first line actions could and
should have been taken by members of Congress or the
Electoral College, pursuant to the Twelfth and
Twentieth Amendments for instance. Case
8:09cv00082DOCAN,Document 56, Filed 09/04/2009, Page 2o
of 32: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll. 114. Of
course, what Congress must do in the case of obvious
electoral deadlocks or recognized and admitted problems
with qualification for office is not at all the point
raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence.
Plaintiffs’complaint and evidence allege and confirm
that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not
even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in
the traditional common law sense of a material
misrepresentation of an important fact upon which
Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their
detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional
government. The Constitution’s textual commitment of
this responsibility is a responsibility that Congress
has embraced. Both the House and the Sentate have
standing committees with jurisdiction to decide
questions relating to Presidential elections. Idem:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where
Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or
prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be
that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress
creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently,
Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule,
and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony
silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party
sitting as President of the Senate during the
certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant
to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy
the people that the President has met the Constitutional
qualifications for office. Idem: Motion to Dismiss at
1314.
Excerpted, more here: KEYES-v-OBAMA-69-OPPOSITION-to-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUPPORT-OF-MOTION-56-filed-by-Plaintiff-Pamela
A 35 page response from Taitz.
ANy chance she incorporated Leo’s recent research on Cheney failing to allow objections and also Pelosi rushed it?
Looks like she had help drafting this.
"President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15,..."
She did incorporate Leo’s suggestions - right at teh bottom of your posting. Mentions Cheney etc.
have = haven’t
8 minutes since you posted and no trolls or ACORN stooges yet. Maybe they are on a coffee break.
~~PING!
BUMP
Okay. What? I think I have to be lawyer just to read the thread title. Someone break this down to non-lawyer English for me.
Orly filed a reponse to the DOJ lawyers trying to get the case in front of Judge Carter dismissed. They screwed up. LEo point out how the DOJ lawyers gave Orly a big opening. See on Leo’s site. After reading the first page it should be more clear.
Ping
Anyone get the impression that a lot more legal help is coming out of the woodwork for this case with Judge Carter for Orly and I am sure that is also true on the Dark Side.
TANKS,Lu...
>>> Okay. What? I think I have to be lawyer just to read the thread title. Someone break this down to non-lawyer English for me.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the arguments.
The response makes an excellent case that this “legal standing” stuff is a bunch of BS.
In a nutshell, it says that the defendant’s motion to dismiss quotes no law or constitutional grounds for it’s claims...
and that the constitution provides for “THE PEOPLE” to have redress through the courts when elected officials and bodies (congress) fails to carry out it’s constitutional duty.
And that the courts are given the power to assert process where the constitution is vague. (i.e. no process for verification)
The majority of the response explained in detail with examples and powerful arguments why this whole process and history of other cases demonstrates that the defendant is hiding something, and most importantly that THE PEOPLE have every right to challenge constitutionality through the courts according to the 1st and 9th ammendments.
Must read!
Sounded like Keyes wrote it himself.
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.