Discovery establishing the authenticity of Kenya BCs or revealing potential defects in Obamas 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
No
This is why Orly believes that she has permission to begin discovery. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19548434/KEYES-v-OBAMA-57-ORDER-SETTING-SCHEDULING-CONFERENCE-FOR-1052009-at-830-AM