Opponents of Barack Obama's presidency claim small court victory

Supporters of a case that disputes the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency claimed a small victory today when U.S. District Judge David O. Carter told them to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to "the merits" of their case. But others present for the hearing Monday at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana stressed that the case remains a long way from ever getting a full airing in court and may never get to that point.

The case, Alan Keyes, et al. v Barack H. Obama, et al. was filed on Inauguration Day and is one of a raft of suits alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen.” Such claims have fared badly in court to date. In December, for example, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a case challenging Obama’s right to take the oath of office.

Perhaps because of that history, Orly Taitz, the lawyer who filed the current suit, was greatly cheered by Monday’s hearing. "He's very determined to hear the case on the merits," Taitz said, referring to the judge. "He stated, the country needs to know if Mr. Obama is legitimate, if he can legitimately stay in the White House."

That’s not quite the way Asst. U.S. Atty. David DeJute heard the judge’s comments. Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said that “the judge did make a bunch of comments about having the matter correctly and thoroughly aired, once and if they got to the merits of the actual lawsuit, which was not the subject of today's discussion."

The key word is “if,” Mrozek stressed. “We're literally at procedural grounds at this point in time," he said.

Comment after the Miami Herald article

@@@

” 1
NOISLAMOCOMMIE wrote on 07/13/2009 07:15:48 PM:

This current occupant has shielded all documents and spent thousands on lawyers to shield him from the truth of his background.All the pink panty voters who put this usurper in total control of this nation need to stop and reflect for a mpoment of what the implications are of a man with long affiliations to the communist party and an Islamic money pipeline funding his campaign.

If possible stretch your IQ a little and read the requirements for president and why it was set up the way it was for the benefit of avoiding treason/allegiance issues.Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was a foreign national.Check this theory out for yourself if you don’t see the evidence in the economic terrorism he is enacting upon this capitalistic nation.

Also examine the massive scrubbing going on with regards to his birthplace and hospitals in Hawaii tripping over their stories.

Go to Obama File, a site linked to the Congressional library..see the evidence for yourself.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1139969.html

Info for thread:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALAN KEYES, Ph.D., WILLEY S.
DRAKE, AND MARKHAM ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (Anx)
DATE: July 13, 2009
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
CTRM: 9D
Hon. David O. Carter

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

COMES NOW the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, by and through its undersigned counsel, and respectfully files this Statement of Interest:

I. Plaintiffs Are Required To Comply With The Service Provisions Contained In Rule 4(i) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

While the Complaint is not a model of clear pleading, when distilled to its essence, it appears that this case seeks a judgment declaring whether Barack H. Obama is eligible to be President of the United States. See, e.g., ¶¶ 36 and 37 of the Complaint. As such, it is indisputable that this case constitutes an action against an “Officer of the United States.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i). It follows ineluctably, therefore, that service must be effected pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. The Requirements For Service Of Process Provided In Rule 4(i) Have Not been Met

Plaintiffs cannot allege that they have complied with the service requirements of Rule 4(i). As Plaintiffs acknowledge, Rule 4(i) requires, among other things, that “a party must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee under Rule 4(e), (f), or (g).” See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, 2, quoting Rule 4(i)(3)(emphasis added). In other words, to effect proper service a party must serve both the officer or employee and the United States. In order to properly serve the United States, however, a party must serve the United States Attorney for the District in which the suit is pending. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). Among other defects, Plaintiffs have never served the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California as required by Rule 4(i). On this ground alone the Court should find that the service of process requirements under the Federal Rules have not been met.

III. Even Assuming, Arguendo, That Plaintiffs Were Only Required To Comply With The Service Requirements Of Rule 4(e), They Have Not Done So

Throughout their moving papers, Plaintiffs assert that, notwithstanding the fact that they are contesting the eligibility of President Obama under Article II, they are not suing President Obama in his official capacity, but, rather, merely as an individual. From this, Plaintiffs further assert that they are, therefore, required only to comply with the service requirements contained in Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs finally assert in this regard that they have complied specifically with Rule 4(e)(2)(C). In support of their assertion that they have complied with Rule 4(e)(2)(C), Plaintiffs proffer the “General Affidavit” of Mary Ann McKiernan. In this document, which Plaintiffs attach to their Motion, Ms. McKierman states that on February 10, 2009, sheattempted to serve “a Pleading” (not further identified) to President Obama at the White House. She further states that she gave the envelope with “the Pleading” to a Secret Service Agent ata gate just outside the White House. She thereafter avers that the Secret Service Agents told her that she could not serve the papers there. She states that she then called the White House, and was informed by White House legal counsel that she needed to serve the papers “to the Department of Justice.” Thereafter, she alleges that she went to the Department of Justice, and ultimately servedthe papers upon a “male Mail Clerk.” The facts set forth in Ms. McKiernan’s “General Affidavit” constitute the sole basis for Plaintiffs’ contention that they have properly served President Obama, in his private capacity, with the
Summons and Complaint herein under Rule 4(e)(2)(C). Even assuming, arguendo, that only Rule 4(e) applied here, Plaintiffs have not shown, nor can they show, that a mail clerk at the Department of Justice to whom Ms. Mckiernan gave some unspecified “Pleading” was authorized, by appointment or by law, to receive service of process on behalf of Barack H. Obama in lawsuits where he was sued in his private, individual capacity. Indeed, it strains credulity past the breaking point to conclude that an otherwise unidentified mail clerk in the Department of Justice would have been authorized through appointment by Defendant Obama, or by law, to receive service of process on Defendant Obama’s behalf in cases where he was sued only in his private, individual capacity.
Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that, even assuming for purposes of argument that only Rule 4(e) applied to this case, the provisions of that Rule have not been met.

IV. Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Without Merit And Should Be Denied Forthwith

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is without merit factually, legally or logically, and it should be denied forthwith. Morever, the questions presented by the Motion are so frivolous and insubstantial that they do not merit an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292.

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is submitted that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration Or In The Alternative To Certify Question For Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 is completely without merit, and should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: July 7, 2009 THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
United States Attorney
LEON WEIDMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
/S/
_______________________________
ROGER E. WEST
Assistant United States Attorneys
First Assistant Chief, Civil Division
/S/
_______________________________
DAVID A. DeJUTE
Assistant United States Attorneys
Attorneys for the United States
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 18 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 5 of 5

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.