Posted on 02/15/2009 11:13:46 PM PST by SvenMagnussen
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Keyes v. Bowen, Obama, Biden
Case No.: 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-GDS
Orly Taitz, Esq. Gary G. Kreep, Esq.
Attorney for the Petitioners
Honorable Michael P. Kenney presiding.
AMBASSADOR DR. ALAN KEYES (herein referred to as "KEYES"), a resident of the State of Maryland, and DR. WILEY S. DRAKE, SR. (herein referred to as "DRAKE"), and MARKHAM ROBINSON (herein referred to as "ROBINSON"), each a resident of the State of California, all Petitioners herein, hereby submit their PETITIONERS' POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (hereinafter referred to as "OPPOSITION").
INTRODUCTION
On November 13,2008, PETITIONERS filed a Writ of Mandate seeking to enjoin the California Secretary of State and the California Electors of the Democratic Party from certifying the election of Former Senator Obama (hereinafter referred to as "OBAMA") and Former Senator Biden (hereinafter referred to as "BIDEN") to the Office of President and Office of Vice President, respectively, of the United States. RESPONDENTS submitted a Demurrer and Judgment on the Pleadings on or about January 2, 2009. Since that time circumstances have changed as OBAMA and BIDEN have been inaugurated to their respective offices. Therefore, PETITIONERS are filing an Amended Writ of Mandate along with OPPOSITION.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Office of the Secretary of State of California is the California agency responsible for certifying candidates for inclusion on the ballot. Historically, California Secretaries of State have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents, verifying that the candidates that were submitted by the respective political parties as eligible for the ballot were indeed eligible, In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. The then SOS, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for President. Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the Presidential primary. When the then SOS checked his eligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was similarly not eligible, and Mr. Holmes was removed from the ballot. In the last election, there was a similar situation in that the Democratic Party nominated Former Senator Barack Obama as candidate for President.
There are a number of reasons that could make OBAMA ineligible to serve as President of the United States. On August 21, 2008, Mr. Phillip J. Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, filed a legal action against OBAMA and the Democratic National Committee, With his action, and in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Berg provided documents to the effect that OBAMA was born in what is now Kenya (the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar at the time) and that his paternal step-grandmother was present at his birth. OBAMA claims that he was bom in Hawaii. According to statements made by his half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii. According to his biography posted on Wikipedia. OBAMA was born in Queens Hospital in Hawaii. However, he has never provided the original hospital birth certificate from 1961, with the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor in attendance. All that OBAMA has poste ed on his website is a Registry of Live Birth (short version), obtained in 2007, that does not provide the name of the hospital or the doctor. Clearly, one human being cannot be bom in three different places. Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.
The only way to know where OBAMA was actually born is to view OBAMA's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him. From August 2), 2008, OBAMA has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, "... I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunisation records..." which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for OBAMA's paternal step-grandmother, who affirmed that she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961." Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, OBAMA refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information. Instead, OBAMA has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit. This matter is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The parties in this case have standing to bring this litigation, due to the fact that Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake, Sr., are candidates on the California ballot for President and Vice President of the United States, and Mr. Robinson is an Elector for the Keyes-Drake ticket, and Vice Chairman of America's Independent Party, of Fenton, Michigan, which nominated Dr. Keyes for President. He is also a Chairman of the American Independent Party (California), which nominated Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake for President and Vice President, respectively. Based on the foregoing, it is imperative for SOS to be provided proof that OBAMA is a "natural born" citizen.
.... SNIP ....
ARGUMENT
COA AGAINST OBAMA AND BJDEN
RESPONDENTS argue that PETITIONER'S writ fails to show any affirmative duty on the part of either OBAMA or BIDEN to show eligibility for the Office of President. The U.S. Constitution, however, requires that in order for a candidate to be eligible for the Offices of the President or Vice President is for the candidate, among other requirements, to be "a natural born Citizen" of the United States (U.S. Const. Ait II, § 1, Cl. 4). As was alleged in PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, there are a number of unresolved questions regarding whether OBAMA is a natural born citizen of the United States. In addition, courts have held that a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing in the election (See, e.g., Tex. Dem. Party v. Bcnkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 586-87 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2006); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir.1994); Fulani v, Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir.1990)). Because there are unresolved questions regarding OB AMA' S eligibility for the Office of President and since KE YES was a candidate and competitor against OBAMA for that office, OBAMA, KEYES' chance of winning the Presidential election was unfairly hurt by OBAMA if he was an ineligible rival. In addition, if there is no way with which to challenge a presidential candidate's eligibility for the Office of President, ihen the eligibility clause of U.S. Const. Art II, § 1, Cl. 4 has been effectively vitiated, and the requirement can be disregarded.
.... SNIP ....
MOOTNESS
RESPONDENTS argue that, because the 2008 presidential election is over and because the actions sought to be enjoined have already taken place that this issue is moot. However, this issue is not moot because the issues presented in the WRIT OF MANDATE are ongoing and will continue unless and until the writ of mandate is issued against RESPONDENTS to compel them to follow California Election Law in future presidential elections.
CONCLUSION
The Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings should be denied.
Respectfully submitted February 11, 2009. /s/ Gary G Kreep, Esp. Attorney for Pettitioners
Legalese is above my pay grade!
They’re warming up for the first batter.
I was not aware that the two hospitals in Hawaii had been subpoenaed for birth records, and that Obama had refused to sign consent forms.
No Republican could ever get away with that.
As desperately as I’d love to get the usurper out of office, this case (judging only by this pleading) looks poorly supported, much like Berg and others, and I’m not even a lawyer.
I just don’t think there’s gonna be any progress made in these cases when they use things like Wikipedia and rumors (even if they’re probably true!) as key bases of argument.
Which case is it in which they’re actually conducting what looks like legitimate DISCOVERY by issuing subpoenas for his college records, scheduling depositions for college admins, etc.? Is it this same case? That’s the kind of stuff that’s far more likely to get legal legs IMVHO.
MM
~~PING!
Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, OBAMA refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information. Instead, OBAMA has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit.
.... and when I joined the military, they required me to submit my birth certificate.... When I applied for law enforcement, they wanted a security background check.... Why can Obama get away with not proving that he is eligible to serve as President???? Association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers???? And they call me a bigot for voting for McCain!
It’s a response to Obama’s move to dismiss the case. Keye’s attorney mentions a history of the California Secretary of State gathering disqualifying information on some Presidential candidates and disqualifying them from the ballot.
Obama wants this case to go away because he has won the election.
Keye’s wants the Court to write a mandate that all candidates for the Office of the President will be vetted with information available to the Secretary of State. Obama’s HI BC is not available to the Calif. SoS, but Obama’s California school records are. Obama’s academic information could be a path to vet the candidate now and in the future.
I posted a WSJ Blog based ona short story where they dismiss all of this saying teh courts and judges always dismiss it based on standing and harm.
Article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440666520775795.html#
Blog (freep the blog with a comment - no sign up required can use anon as name)
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/12/standing-in-the-way-of-the-constitution/#comment-397649
I am starting to think Gary Kreep’s case with Allan Keyes may be one of the strongest cases and the one Obama is worried about the most.
Pointing out the obvious, Keyes was injured because he ran against Obama and it sure looks like he has standing.
It also appears that there are only two possible hospitals in Honolulu, HI he could have been born in. The only possibility would be a midwife or something which is doubtful. If those hospitals have no records he is toast.
The Keyes case may decide whether we will have country. The great things is Dr. Keyes is one of the most passionate pro-Constitution Republicans or Americans you will find.
From what I gather, Obama’s school records are NOT available to the State of CA. Occidental College has received a reply from Obama’s attorneys that the college cannot release ANY of his records accompanied with a request to dismiss the case and issue a “fine” to the plaintiffs. This is outrageous ! Problem is EVERY judge in the US has complied with all of these motions to dismiss which indicates an unprecedented “nationwide judicial conspiracy” to dismiss any case against the messiah. It’s absolutely unfathomable !
Absolutely! God bless him.
When will the birthers learn that their lawsuits have no merit?
Talk about self-deulsion. How sad.
I really hope you haven't donated any money to these clowns.
How did a nasty little liberal skunk like you get in here?
Of course not. There are these things called privacy laws.
On what grounds should a court compell Obama to show his college records? How on Earth can they possibly be relevant to his eligibility for the presidency?
And no, they are not necessary to determine whether he was ever an Indonesian citizen. It is impossible under both US and Indonesian law for him to have ever acquired indonesian citizenship.
with a request to dismiss the case and issue a “fine” to the plaintiffs.
It is entirely appropriate to fine plaintiffs who waste the court's (and respondant's) time and money by filing frivolous motions and complaints.
Problem is EVERY judge in the US has complied with all of these motions to dismiss which indicates an unprecedented “nationwide judicial conspiracy”
So every judge in the country is in on it, huh. LOL.
Ask yourself this: is it more plausible that you are right and the entire judiciary is somehow conspiring to hide the truth? Or is it more plausible that the judges are right and these cases are all meritless?
If you answered the first, you might want to go and try on some tinfoil hats.
Opposing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories with reason does not make me a liberal.
I thought your little group go today off. If it is self delusion why do you all both posting. LOL! Suggest you read Justice Scalia and Kennedy’s writings.
Keyes has harm and standing. This one is going to SCOTUS.
As soon as the Deniers learn Keyes has standing and damages. LOL! Enjoy.
; ~ )
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.