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
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
>>> 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.
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.