... to #10,312.
Today, Attorney Kreep files: "REVISED OPPOSITION to Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY ; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF "
In part...
"Attorney for Plaintiffs, Dr. Wiley S. Drake andMarkham Robinson
I. INTRODUCTION
This response to Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery is limited to the issues affecting Plaintiff’s Markham Robinson and Dr.Wiley Drake. It is our understanding that [snip] will be addressing the issues affecting her clients in her response to this Ex Parte Application.
This action is brought by, among others, Plaintiffs Dr. Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFFS”). Dr. Wiley Drake was the Vice Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008Presidential Election on the California ballot. Markham Robinson was a pledged Presidential Elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election for the California ballot. [snip] is representing Plaintiff Dr. Alan Keyes,herein, who was the Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the2008 Presidential Election on the California ballot.In order to properly address issues raised in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery, it is necessary to address the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal which lead to this Ex Parte Application, and which is referenced in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application.
II. STANDING
A. INJURY AND CAUSATION
Standing is proper when there is an injury in fact, caused by the Defendant,and redressable by the court. The Court in Hollander v. McCain held “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 orparty's own chances of prevailing in the election.” ( Hollander v. McCain (2008)566 F.Supp.2d 63). Here, Dr. Wiley Drake was a candidate for Vice President of the United States running against Defendant Barack Obama in the 2008 election. As a Vice Presidential candidate, Dr. Drake has an interest in having a fair competition for that position. This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed ifthat disqualified contestant remains as the contestants would not be competing on a level playing field. Defendant Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States and, as a result, Dr. Wiley Drake has been injured because he did not have fair competition for the office of Vice President of the United States, and, thus, was not given a fair opportunity to obtain votes for Vice President of the United States..
Here also, Mr. Robinson was a Presidential Elector in the 2008 election. As an Elector, he had an interest in there being a fair competition between the candidate he pledged to vote for and the other candidates for the office of President of the United States. Mr. Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States and, as a result, Mr.Robinson has been injured because the candidate he pledged to vote for did not have a fair competition for the office of Vice President of the United States, thus preventing Mr. Robinson from casting a vote for the candidates he pledged to vote for as Elector.
As a result, PLAINTIFFS have suffered a concrete injury in fact.
B. REDRESSABLE BY THE COURT
Defendants allege, on page 9 of their Motion to Dismiss, that “the political question doctrine precludes redress to any Plaintiffs because such redress would improperly arrogate to this Court jurisdiction over political questions as to the fitness and qualifications of the President which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and the Senate.” Defendants further allege, on page 12 of their Motion to Dismiss, that “issues related to a candidate’s eligibility for the office of president rest, in the first instance, with the voters and with their Electoral College, the Constitutionally created body responsible for selecting the President of the United States.” This assertion is incorrect in a number of ways. First, a provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote ofthe people, as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution (hereinafter referred to as “U.S.Const.”), Article (hereinafter referred to as “Art.”) 5, requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all State legislatures in the United States (U.S. Const., Art. 2). Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as President a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the Constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible. Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power or the right to determine the eligibility of a candidate.
In addition, the Electoral College is not empowered with the authority to determine the eligibility of any candidate. In twenty-six States and the District of Columbia, Presidential Electors are prohibited by statute from voting in variance with their pledges, or, if they do, they face civil or criminal penalties and fines. The act of determining eligibility is one that requires discretionary authority so that a candidate found to be ineligible may be removed. However, any discretionary authority of the majority of the State’s Presidential Electors has been removed by statute, and the Presidential Electors, instead, perform a ministerial function of casting their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. The assertion of Defendants that the Electoral College has the authority to make any determination of a Presidential candidate’s qualifications is unpersuasive because, while the historical intent of the of the Electoral College was to make such determinations, the modern majority trend of the States is to limit the duties of the Electors to the ministerial role of casting a vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote of their respective States."
... to #10,312.
In the quote above, [snip] = Dr. Taitz.
Translation? It looks like Gary Kreep filed something here. I hope Orly focuses on Obama instead of fighting with Kreep. Can Orly and kreep present their respective cases in the same case?
I know Judge Carter told them to work it out.
Not “asked” Orly but Judge Carter told you.
I support her but if she starts fighting Kreep and then the Judge - she will blow her case up.