KEYES v OBAMA OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case ; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Scribd ^ | September 21, 2009 | Orly Taitz

[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

[danamco]

Un-Constitutional theft!!!

[Danae]

See here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/pending-litigation-hawaii-confirms-that-obamas-vital-records-have-been-amended/#comment-11531

[MHGinTN]

And the Democrat party controlling Congress is so corrupt that they certsainly will do nothing to right the criminal enterprise moves which benefit them directly. The Democrat party is a criminal enterprise, and this is one of the most blatant examples of their total bankrupt thuggery.

[Mr. Silverback]

Think we have a live one at post 79.

[Admin Moderator]

What rule has the poster violated?

[so_real]

Mea culpa. It was not a "replacement" but an "insertion" of the birthplace-of-child line. Intellectual dishonesty nonetheless. The original affidavit filed by Lucas Smith does not include a document containing this line.

[browardchad]

What rule has the poster violated?

Good question.

Having fun, at the expense of those without a sense of humor, perhaps?

Off with its head!

[thecraw]

Yeah the timing of that whole Hawaii trip thing, 2 days before the election was fishy. I wonder if ashes of the original BC are mixed in with Granny's???

It really seems as though unless you're a mind-numbed Obot, every single thing The Usurper has done, is doing now, and says he'll do in the future makes you go, hmmmmmmm...

[Sibre Fan]

Could someone explain this .... Is this good or bad? My wife wants to know.

It all depends on your point of view, and Judge Carter's point of view.

QOU WARRANTO (pp 4-8)
Plaintiff's argument is basically that Judge Carter should permit the quo warranto case to proceed in his California court is based on the argument that Eric Holder refused to file it there, and the DC courts (vested by statute with jurisdiction) won't hear it, citing to Judge Robertson's "silencing" of Hemenway in Hollister v. Soetoro.

So the question is whether Judge Carter will find that even though the relevant statute says that quo warrantos must be filed in DC, he will take the case anyway because Eric Holder refused to file it in DC and because Judge Robertson "silenced" Hemenway by imposing sanctions on him in Hollster. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will ignore the relevant statute "for the greater good," then the brief is great.

FOIA (pp 8-9)
Plaintiff's FOIA argument is basically that a few plaintiffs did file FOIA requests. And, Taitz, while not submitting formal FOIA requests, submitted requests to various agents through her multiple dossiers.

So the question is whether Judge Carter will find that even though the relevant statutes require FOIA plaintiffs to proceed through several FOIA-regulation steps (which are not alleged even with respect to the plaintiffs who did file requests), he has jurisdiction to accept their FOIA claims. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will ignore the relevant FOIA statutes and regulations "for the greater good," then the brief is great.

STANDING (pp. 8-13)
Here, Plaintiffs argue that all have "taxpayer" standing, and that some have standing under "oaths" or "constitutional duties" principles. Taitz cites several cases to support her position, including a couple that are no longer good law (because they were vacated, abrogated, or otherwise limited), but they have good statements about standing in them. She also makes a cogent argument that the taxpayer standing cases should be expanded to include this situation. (So far, with hundreds of cases being filed on the issue over the past decades, the only "taxpayer" standing principle that the Supreme Court has adopted is that taxpayers can sue to prevent government monies from being spent in ways that arguably violate the First Amendment prohibition against esablishment of state religion. However, lots of plaintiffs continue to attempt to have a court expand that limitation.)

So the question is whether Judge Carter will find that even though the cases she cites are distinguishable or no longer good law, he will use statements in those cases to rule for her. Also, will Judge Carter expand the general "taxpayer" standing status beyond establishment of religion cases to include this type of case. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will do that "for the greater good," then the brief is great.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE (pp. 13-16)
I'm not sure I understand this argument, but it seems that Plaintiffs are arguing that Justice Taney's decision establishing the Political Question doctrine in Luther v. Borden was wrong (because in that case, Taney held that the political question doctrine precluded the court from hearing the case). Plaintiff's critcize the ruling as establishing a "bright line choice between political action by ballot and revolution, with no possibility of judicial intervention." Plaintiffs continue that even if the political question doctrine still applies to Article IV challenges, it does not apply to Article III challenges.

So the question is two-fold: Will this district judge hold that the Supreme Court decision in Luther v. Borden was incorrect and, if not, will Judge Carter find that even though the doctrine applies to Article IV challenges, it does not apply to Article III challenges. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will do that, then the brief is great.

TAXPAYER STANDING & PROTECTION FOR DISCREET & INSULAR MINORITIES (pp. 16-24)
Here, Plaintiffs return to standing, citing to Flast v. Cohen, the case finding that taxpayers have standing to challenge taxes spent in alleged violation of the establishment clause. (Discussed above in more detail.) Will Judge Carter expand that rule even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to do so? We won't know until October 5.

Plaintiffs also make the argument that they have standing under the First and Ninth Amendment, and should be protected as a discreet minority, citing to Wisconsin v. Yoder. Wisconsin v. Yoder was not a standing case, but the Supreme Court did find that the Amish were a "discreet and insular" religious minority, whose religious beliefs precluded compulsory education of children past 8th grade. Will Judge Carter find that minorites other than religious minorities are protected under Yoder and, if so, that Plaintiffs are a similar "discreet and insular" minority whose beliefs preclude them from taking orders from a President that they believe is not eligible under Article III? We won't know until October 5.

[1035rep]

WE THE PEOPLE!

Thanks for the ping FARS.

[The Comedian]

Plaintiff submits that if discovery is ever allowed in this case, it will be rapidly settled by the resignation or impeachment of the President.

Awesome. I'd only add "followed by immediate incarceration and/or deportation to his nation of origin."

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[darkangel82]

iatz

[1035rep]

Sniff, sniff, is that you Dan Rather?

[Mr. Silverback]

Not a rule violation, more like a profile. Recent signup, only posts on the birther issue...and I may be wrong, but every time I see an Obama certificate I tend to have my troll radar on, whether the cert says Hawaii or not.

Call me crazy if you’d like...it’s not like I think you work for me or anything.

Either way, good hunting!

[1035rep]

LOL! You always make my day. I think I love you :)

[MHGinTN]

At FR of late, posting a fraudulent exhibit on a birther thread is not a violation of FR policy, so ‘greaT kiM’ is now being protected as a member in good standing of the anti-birther squad.

[MHGinTN]

Note the ‘so the question is’ methodology of trying to frame and herd the discussion into an obamanoid favorable twist?

[Admin Moderator]

Folks need to quit yelling “TROLL” every time they’re challenged. Whether implicit or explicit. It’s tiresome.

[pissant]

That one IS a troll, I assure you.

[Mr. Silverback]

Consider me advised.