Skip to comments.KEYES v OBAMA OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case ; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Posted on 09/21/2009 10:11:47 PM PDT by Red Steel
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: Defendants 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.
Plaintiffscomplaint 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 Constitutions 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:
Defendants 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
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
“...I am beside myself over all this...”
Be assured, friend, that you are one among many, a great many who feel exactly the same as you.
Thanks. I heart you. For the sanity.
Good summary. Orly has, once again, filed a brief which is long on rhetoric but short on responses to the precedents relied upon in the defendants’ brief. I have no crystal ball, but my years of experience litigating cases in federal court tell me that those who are putting all their hopes on Judge Carter may be disappointed come October 5. But time will tell.
It was eight days ago that Orley claimed that she would have Obama out of office in 30 days.
And she will, once again, brook no competition.
From her blog:
Whatever documents I have, I make public immediately. This is important for the whole country. When I got the registrar and hospital birth certificates from Kenya, I made those public. Leo Donofrio claims that he has information from HI, that Obamas birth certificate was amended. He should make this information public, he needs to post the document with the statement that it is amended together with the declaration of the person, who obtained this record, testifying under penalty of perjury that it is the true and correct copy of the document . It is too important not to be disclosed. We can include it in the second amended complaint. This is what I got from the Journalist Devvy Kidd.
(There follows open source research by Kidd)
If this is so important to the whole country, Ms. Taitz, why not contact Leo Donofrio, directly, rather than urging your minions to do so?
Furthermore, I don't remember Donofrio stating he had any "document."
Yeah, I cried upon seeing that speech. That was theft by tyrant.
Is there a copy of this pdf available from somewhere other than scribd?
Devvy Kidd? Orly is citing Devvy Kidd?
Nice company Orly is keeping.
That's her MO, isn't it?
She gives interviews, freely, to sites like TMP Muckraker, who portray her as the clown queen of the Repulican "rightwingers.
She willingly" appears on MSNBC, who rip her to shreds as a deranged "rightwing" nutjob.
When are people -- meaning those people who aren't intentionally sabotaging the right -- going to wise up about Taitz?
Page 2. "Idem: Defendants 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. "
Cheney either forgot or intentionally missed to query Congress if they had any objections to Barack Obama becoming president. Cheney failed in his ministerial duties as prescribed by "3 United States Code §15." The omission by Cheney may come back to bite Obama in his @$$ since...
The thrust of Obama's and the government's Motion to Dismiss is that Congress and the Electoral process are the ones who vet presidential candidates and no one else. The government stepped in it here. As pointed out that they failed to follow procedure.
In the Governments Motion to Dismiss, they conveniently omitted the following passage as it is written statute 3 U.S.C. §15:
"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof "
Cheney left a big hole that may increase to the size of Meteor Crater, AZ in the governments argument, so conveniently not explained to you.
Thanks Tru man Dog Z.
Well lets hope all the offense does not leak the defense.
As Slim and Cinnamon Sue sing the old Cow range songs....
Dont Rope Me in.
IOW Play the poker hand well and win with honesty and integrity.
It’s exactly the same as the other one.
Are you referring to some invisible ink that has to be passed over a candle to read?
Duh, is that what he did. The link and the “BC” he posted were exactly the same and I wondered what the deal was, including the bogus birth place.
I think I need more caffiene.
There was an Ohio member of Congress who did raise his hand as he was about to object, but Cheney ignored him as he ignored to ask Congress for objections.
Now, if Taitz (or any other lawyer pursuing the eligibility actions) could find even just one single representative or senator who could affirm that the Rep/Senator was not permitted to file an objection, that person would have standing to sue, and the case would be proceeding post haste.
Who knows, this case may lead to that.
Gary Kreep had an entirely different argument in his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed on 9/18.
His argument is that the Electoral College "lacks the power to make eligibility determinations." IOW, it has an essentially "ministerial" (i.e. clerical) function of counting the electoral votes, and any objections would be to the correct tallying/casting of votes -- not to qualifications of the those voted for.
It's an interesting interpretation, and worth reading. Here.