Posted on 09/21/2009 10:11:47 PM PDT by Red Steel
-Snip-
PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, to be supplemented by filing Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint on or before October 2, 2009
Come now the Plaintiffs with this their Preliminary
Response toDefendants’ September 4, 2009, Document 56
Motion to Dismiss (with reservation of rights to Respond
further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
on or before Friday, October 2, 2009).
POLITICAL RELATIVITY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL ABSOLUTES: IS THE
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE VIABLE AS A MEANS TO
EVADECOMPLIANCE WITH UNVARIABLE STANDARDS?
Fundamentally, this case comes down to a single
bifurcated question question: (1A) does the constitution
mean what it says when it lays down absolute parameters,
such as the age and citizenship qualifications to be
President, and (1B) to whom does the investigation and
enforcement of this constitutional provision: to the
Congress, the People, or can the President get by merely
asserting his qualifications without presenting evidence
which would be competent as Summary Judgment
(admissible) evidence under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure? The Plaintiffs have brought their
complaint as a matter of first impression to ask this
Court to determine, find, hold, and rule that the
investigation and enforcement of this right belongs to
the people, even members of a discrete and insular
minority of the people, even if this group lacks
majoritarian political power. Plaintiffs respond to the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ask this Court to
rule, pursuant to the First and Ninth Amendments that
they may sue to enforce constitutional absolutes, such
as the constitutional requirements for President of the
United States. Plaintiffs assert an inalienable,
reserved right to sue for Constitutional conformity in
this case even though they concede that the Defendants
have shown that primary, first line actions could and
should have been taken by members of Congress or the
Electoral College, pursuant to the Twelfth and
Twentieth Amendments for instance. Case
8:09cv00082DOCAN,Document 56, Filed 09/04/2009, Page 2o
of 32: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll. 114. Of
course, what Congress must do in the case of obvious
electoral deadlocks or recognized and admitted problems
with qualification for office is not at all the point
raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence.
Plaintiffs’complaint and evidence allege and confirm
that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not
even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in
the traditional common law sense of a material
misrepresentation of an important fact upon which
Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their
detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional
government. The Constitution’s textual commitment of
this responsibility is a responsibility that Congress
has embraced. Both the House and the Sentate have
standing committees with jurisdiction to decide
questions relating to Presidential elections. Idem:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where
Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or
prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be
that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress
creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently,
Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule,
and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony
silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party
sitting as President of the Senate during the
certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant
to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy
the people that the President has met the Constitutional
qualifications for office. Idem: Motion to Dismiss at
1314.
Excerpted, more here: KEYES-v-OBAMA-69-OPPOSITION-to-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUPPORT-OF-MOTION-56-filed-by-Plaintiff-Pamela
I believe the law states that the objections must be made in writing, signed by at least one member from each House. Where any such objections submitted?
The Chrysler dealers should get with Leo to write up a quo warranto action.
In its motion to dismiss, the defense argued that the "The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process."
We know, though, in practice, the electors are political hacks appointed as electors by their party in reward for their support. Theirs has become, in practice, a ceremonial role (and some of them might not even be alive, as was the case with one in California).
If you look at Kreef's argument in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, Cheney's oversight becomes insignificant.
...the Electoral College is not empowered with the authority to determine the eligibility of any candidate. As discussed above, 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.
Further, other than a Concurring Opinion, Defendants offer no modern precedent for the claimed power of the Electoral College. Thus, the Electoral College lacks the authority to make a determination of a candidates eligibility, and the Court should deny these grounds for dismissal.
Considering how robotic the EC has become, it would be easier for states to pass laws requiring the SOS to verify Constitutional qualifications. It seems to me the founders were concerned with a very different country, back then, and didn't necessarily foresee the EC becoming a decision-making body, but rather an educated one capable of tabulating local votes across a scattered, rural populace with only rudimentary means of communication.
Kreep is arguing original intent vs. modern reality (pre-electiricity/railroads vs modern high-speed communications):
Defendants cite in their Motion to Dismiss, the concurring opinion in Williams v Rhodes as support for their contention that it is the exclusive role of the Electoral College to decide whether a presidential candidate is eligible for the office. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. However, the concurrence instead indicated the concerns that the founders had regarding the fact that the nation was too spread out for the average citizen to be able to make an informed decision about whom to vote for as president, "[t]he [Electoral] College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the community to choose the executive of a nation whose continental dimensions were thought to preclude an informed choice by the citizenry at large."By the time the modern EC meets, the votes have been tabulated, examined, analyzed and regurgitated, ad nauseum, by the media.
This concern is no longer relevant because, while the original intent for the Electoral College was to have a set number of "knowledgeable members of the community" make the decision of whom to elect as president, the modern function of the Electoral College is to simply cast a vote for the Presidential Candidate who received the majority of the vote from the State which each Elector represents. This change in the nature of the Electoral College has taken place because information about each candidate is now available for every voter in the country, which allows each and every voter to be "knowledgeable members of the community" capable of making informed decisions of whom to elect president.
(Citations removed)
September 21, 2009 at 8:47 am:
[Ed. I'm admitted in the 3rd Circuit District Court and the State of NJ. I have been invited to join the DC Bar and Circuit because of my multi state bar exam score. I am preparing my application as we speak. But I do not have to take the DC Bar Exam. Thank God for that. Bar Exams are not fun.]
Referring to Leo's discovery suit in HI of ammendment of Obama's BC (though I, an immodest CPA and not a lawyer disagree with Leo that DOJ has agreed that Obama can be removed in quo warranto, but the opposite...I will post rebuttal later), September 21, 2009 at 8:16 pm:
[Ed. This isn't about removing the President. It's about shedding light on the situation. But you are wrong. Go read the position of the DOJ adopted in their motion to dismiss in the Barnett suit. As I reported months ago, the POTUS eligibility and removal can be handled by the DC DIstrict Court under the Quo warranto statute. The DOJ is on record in the Barnett case having argued that Orly's case is improperly venued and that a Quo Warranto must be brought in the DC District Court. The DOJ agrees that the POTUS can be removed via Quo Warranto and they are representing him.]
September 22, 2009 at 7:42 am:
[Ed. Hey RCL, welcome to the nbc blog. You should familiarize yourself with my legal brief on the federal Quo Warranto statute, a three part report. In that statute Congress authorized one single court to hear issues regarding the eligibility of all US National Officers and those Government officials specifically located in DC. The statute includes all US national govt officers, no exceptions.
The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly's cases where the DOJ represents President Obama.
You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:
The authorizing statute for the District ofColumbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36.
I have maintained that any judicial review of the President's eligibility must come through the DC District Court and the Quo Warranto statute. The DOJ agrees and has put that in an actual court document defending the President. Eventually, the President's eligibility will be challenged in the DC District Court.]
Thank you for the update.
It is a shame there are not 100 more attorneys out there like Leo. All the Chrysler dealers and GM dealers should contact him plus top attorneys who can help.
Based on what I heard on the radio and read about Leo is that he did not like the legal system because of the corruption. I bet is was even worse in NJ. Leo has the guts and he is very sharp plus he is a poker champ.
The dealers need to get behind this. Leo is not out to make money and refuses any donations.
Yes, any additional amended complaint to the motion to dismiss won’t help the Plaintiffs for the 5th October hearing.
If Donofrio can practice in the federal court, where he's filed his cases before, the why does he need a special license to practice in the D.C. District of the federal court?
_____________________________
JB Williams
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
___________________________________
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
So let’s get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
HELP HER!
PayPal:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded
You do realize that the COLB certification that Hawaii now issues routinely, as do most other states, is accepted by the DOS as proof of US citizenship and age? If states passed that law, they would have to accept the Certification of Live Birth, as opposed to a copy of the original birth certificate.
first the line with weight, height is still there.
second a line with birthplace is there, this line is not present on the “other certificate”.
Agreed.
...and (b) there is nothing on the COLB to indicate that info was altered from the original long form.
That's where it gets sticky. For clarity, let's refer to the original birth certificate as "the long form," and the now routinely-issued certification as "the short form." As far as I know, no one has established that there would be any indication of an altered or amended original on the short form. The statutes, IIRC, refer to the new original being marked "amended," but I don't think there's any reference to the short form being marked that way, and I haven't seen any examples of a short form so marked.
Similarly, none of the birther lawyers have ever established that Hawaii statute §338-17.8 - Certificates for children born out of State" - would necessarily indicate that the child was born in Hawaii. The statute doesn't say.
OTOH, Hawaii statute §338-20.5 - Adoption; foreign born person - does say that "The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth".
I'm not sure how other states handle adoptee birth certificates, but I do know that in Georgia, the adopted parents can opt to use their home address as the place of birth on the new certificate, irregardless of where the child was born.
What I'm getting at is the fact that the short form may not tell the whole story, since, if there's more than one version of the long form, it would simply reflect the information on the most recent long form.
The significance of that would only come into play, of course, in the case of a candidate for President.
You don't get a license to practice "in federal court." You get a license to practice in a federal court. There are about 100 separate federal district courts, 13 federal Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Each one of those courts licenses attorneys to practice before that court. A license to practice in, say, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania does not license you to practice in any of the 99 other district courts.
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.