No one here has the first clue how the courts work.
You don’t argue facts in these pleadings. You argue law. (Though Orly does not seem to know this).
Evidence is not submitted in pleadings. Every birth certificate in the world is irrelevant at this moment.
The motion to dismiss is based mainly on two concepts:
1. Standing.
2. Political Question
Orly can have a stack of duely authenticated birth certificates signed by the President of Kenya and St. Peter himself. They don’t matter at this point in time.
Discovery establishing the authenticity of Kenya BCs or revealing potential defects in Obama’s HI BC would enable Keyes to defend against the MTD by establishing a non-speculative basis for Keyes’ injury-in-fact, thus standing, thus jurisdiction (if other elements are shown). Wouldn't this justify a very narrow order for discovery on at least the the two Kenya BCs?
From Motion to Dismiss table of contents:
This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Of
This Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing Herein . . . . . . . . 4
1. No Plaintiff Can Show The Required
Concrete, Traceable Injury-in-Fact
To Provide Standing Herein . . . . . . . . 5