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
Not any more. No discovery is allowed until after the motion to dismiss is ruled on.
Stop trolling. I never said before the motion to dismiss is decided. Do try to keep up ACORN employee.
Then what does Leo's asinine theory have to do with anything current?
Maybe Leo has a good reason to keep documents quiet. Making everything public right away can be a bad strategy. This is especially true when you are looking for more documents. She needs to concentrate on her cases and avoid criticizing what Leo and Gary Kreep are doing.
From what he's posted, there aren't any documents -- just an idea of how to, with some luck, obtain information and/or documents, based on the law and the statements made by the HI Dept. of Health.
That was a general advisory and in no way meant to single you out.
Thanks - I’m not a complete idiot, there are still some parts missing...
No problem, jefe.
Can you source that document image?
Or did you just register here a week ago to troll?
Leo, while initiating a suit against HI vital statistics, still is asserting that Orly's Keyes case will be dismissed for lack of properly stated claim and lack of standing.
Today I suggested to Leo that Judge Carter seems to have actually bent over backwards to recognize and articulate Orly's key claims that Obama is not NBC, was born in Kenya and may still be an Indonesian citizen, but Leo wasn't buying it. Leo still expects Orly's case to be dismissed.
Here is my post to Leo and his editorial comments as “Ed.” included:
September 22, 2009 at 11:26 am
Your current effort to obtain from HI any requests to amend Obamas vital records are fascinating, but could be mooted by Judge Carter on Oct. 5.
[Ed. They can't be mooted. Judge Carter has no jurisdiction of Hawaii UIPA requests.]
Your following comment about Orlys case has been affirmed by nearly every lawyer on the blogs that I have read:
The underlying case is a loser. The pleadings ramble and they dont do what pleadings are supposed to do which is simply make a claim. The pleadings here are used to try the case and they contain so many things the court must ignore and they ignore many things the court must have before it. The plaintiffs have no standing so no pleadings can fix that.
However, despite these shortcomings, somehow Judge Carter has managed to describe Orlys case in a clear articulation of claims regarding both the constitutional question of law as to the meaning of natural born citizen and the fact question of whether Obama was born in Kenya.
Judge Carter said:
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY
On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging, in pertinent part, that President Barack Obama (the President) does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the President, as specified by Article II, §1, cl. 5 of the United States Constitution. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs argue that there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, and not Hawaii, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that the President was a citizen of Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States Citizenship.
[Ed. Isn't it fascinating that Judge Carter does not address the core issue in this paragraph. Judge Carter discusses Obama’s BC issues - place of birth, he discusses Indonesia, but the one FACT which is not disputed but is rather admitted by Obama - that at birth he was governed by Great Britain as a British citizen - that fact and its relevance to nbc status is ignored by Judge Carter.
I told you, they failed to properly plead that issue and the Judge is throwing a sign that he is not considering that issue because it's not included in his summary.]
I take from this that Judge Carter is cutting Orly slack to which she may not be entitled, but to which the country and the Constitution are entitled, unlike Judge Land, Judge Robinson or even SCOTUS when they declined to hear your case.
Judge Carter has also made repeated statements in open court that indicate that while he will hear the Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 5 with a judicially proper open mind, he is inclined to hear the case on the merits. This can only mean that Judge Carter, and perhaps Judge Carter alone sees at least one of Orly and/or Kreeps plaintiffs as having standing sufficient to justify discovery regarding the claims he was able to articulate for Orly and he sees a remedy.
But which plaintiff could Judge Carter be regarding as having standing? You have stated that Keyes has no standing because had no chance of winning:
[Ed. You know... if you're not going to be honest and admit Keyes had no chance of winning... then I can't really help you. Maybe another blog is what you are looking for.]
I fully agree with your assessment of Keyes prospects, but it does seen unfair to any eligible candidate regardless of prospects to have an ineligible candidate dilute possible incremental career benefits of placing higher in a smaller field, not to mention having the ineligible candidate win!
Were you relying on the following analysis by Tokaji and his reference to the Fulani case in concluding that Keyes has no standing?
The plaintiff in Robinson, a would-be elector for a minor party candidate, has a somewhat stronger claim of injury than the plaintiffs in the other cases. But while his interest may be somewhat stronger than that of other members of the public, such a plaintiff still has a serious Article III standing problem. The chances of the candidate winning any electors from any statewhether or not McCain is in the raceare exceedingly remote. On occasion, the Court has found an impediment to competition sufficient to establish standing. There is also a Seventh Circuit case, Fulani v. Hogsett, in which a minor-party presidential candidate was held to have standing to challenge the certification of both major parties 1988 presidential candidates. In that case, however, the court found that the minor party candidate could conceivably have won the Indiana election if she obtained the relief sought. By contrast, Robinsons preferred candidate Alan Keyes is exceedingly unlikely to win any electoral votes in California, even if McCain were disqualified. Robinsons claim of injury is thus too speculative and insufficiently imminent to satisfy Article III, as the district court correctly concluded.
While Tokaji agrees with you regarding Keyes, Tokaji does say in that passage:
On occasion, the Court has found an impediment to competition sufficient to establish standing.
[Ed. I was more inclined to be going under the Newman holding from SCOTUS.]
Perhaps it is in these on occasion cases that Judge Carter has found room to consider Keyes to have standing, and perhaps the fact that Carter is in the Ninth Circuit, not the Seventh Circuit might give him some additional latitude.
Regardless of the prospects of Orlys case on appeal for the reasons you have cited, if Judge Carter orders discovery of Obamas vital records in HI on Oct. 5 and Obamas HI birth is confirmed to have been witnessed in a hospital by an MD, then way will be clear for the public to focus on the quo warranto NBC issue, correct?
[ed. True... but if the case is dismissed it may appear as if the nbc issue was dismissed with it. Not accurate. The issue wasn't properly plead and is not technically before the court in my opinion. We shall see if he goes to it.]
Cheney, President of the Senate, failed in his task to ask for objections during the joint secession of Congress after reading "all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates [votes] of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented." If there were objections from any tandem of Congressman and Senator, the next step is for them to put their objections in writing. This is the correct procedure in accordance with the statute above.
It is besides the point that objections, if any, were not presented before or after the joint session of Congress. Cheney failed to do as prescribed by law. For Taitz to not enlighten judge Carter about the violation by the Senate President, would be negligence on her part to her Plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, Taitz has made it an important part of here opposition to the government's Motion to Dismiss by arguing it upfront on page 2 of her filing.
We will see on October 5th this or any other parts of her filing hold sway with judge Carter. No one here really knows for sure how this all is going to turn out.
From TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1 § 15:
"...Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. 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, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received...."
First, as you plainly see, Cheney should have complied with by calling congressman -"shall call" - for their objections.
And second, after he called on Congress to verbally object, put their objections in writing.
I wouldn’t know where to start to document it, but it has occurred to me that the payment process for the cash for clunkers debacle may also be ‘steered’ by whom has been donating more to Republicans than to Democrats ... what better wya to put the dealerships into a disasterous financial pinch than to withhold beyond thirty day carry over the reimbursements to Republican fdonars, while expediting the payments to democrat donors? The criminal democrats pulled a blatant criminal act in tow parts when they selected Republican donors to close in the Chrysler illegal forced closings, then transferred stock and parts to democrat donor dealerships. Why would they miss this subtle way to squeeze Republican donors even more, and in all brand categories? The entire cash for clunkers fiasco was aimed solely at getting stored units off of lots so union worker would have work while the nation is tanking, economically. And it did that quite nicely for the criminal union thugs the obamanoid administration needs to squeeze the populace at the chosen times.
Standing among Chrysler dealers who donated to Republicans or were located in conservative districts that Obama’s Car Czar targeted for closer? A possible way to get to Obama.
So you know for a fact that Taitz consults with no lawyers - ever? That would not pass the smell test.
The idea that Cheney is kowtowed by Obots is a rather striking idea.
No not Cheney. Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law. Society in general, to include Congress, has cowed in the face of being painted as "racist" or some other nonsense where none really exist - which is used as a political tactic by the left and Obama. You see it everyday from Jimmy Carter to Eric Holder who have playing the BS race card. Furthermore, Obama like clockwork, used the race card on or about every two weeks during his campaign from Spring to Fall of last year. Yeah, I can see why Congress critters who may have had objections to Obama may have ate their words when it was time to speak up.
If they didn't file a written objection, they didn't properly object. You can't say I objected, but I failed to follow the required procedure to make the objection, but my objection should have been heard anyway.
Cheney failed in his duties to follow the statute to "call" on Congress no matter if there were any objections or not. First, Cheney should have called for objections, then the written objections would follow - if any.
How do we know that he was about to object? If he was, where's he BEEN for the past nine months? He was identified (on Orly's blog) on January 31. If he was trying to object, and if he had followed the rules regarding his objection, then HE has a potential claim. Others cannot assert the claim on his behalf, but he has a claim. Where is he? If he is "kowtowing" to PC-ness, then he should be challenged on this.
We don't for sure, He possibly changed his mind because of the withering leftist BS for objecting he would have faced for doing so. Many FReepers here who saw his hand raised thought he raised his hand in objection, Cheney didn't give him a chance at the time now did he? Again, the point is Cheney did not follow the law, therefore, it's an opening for the plaintiff to point this out to the judge no matter what Cheney's reason for not doing so.
The criminal closure of Chrysler dealerships was but one of at least four things this bastard has done since taking office which, were it not for the criminal enterprised democrat party holding the House and Seante, rise to the level of high crimes warranting impeachment and removal, followed by trial and imprisonment. Sadly for America, democrat voters as well as the criminals they usher into power are corrupted beytond redemption. And the GOP is not far behind them in their perfidy.
Especially since Gary Kreep IS part of her case, whether she likes it or not.