Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AZ - LLF Appeal 9th Cir - 2012-08-24 - DNC Opposition to Motion for Injunction

AZ - LLF Appeal 9th Cir - 2012-08-24 - DNC Opposition to Motion for Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 62|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
08/24/2012 6 Filed (ECF) Appellees Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz response opposing motion (,motion for injunction pending appeal). Date of service: 08/24/2012. [8298852] (DAG)
08/24/2012 6 Filed (ECF) Appellees Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz response opposing motion (,motion for injunction pending appeal). Date of service: 08/24/2012. [8298852] (DAG)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Aug 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Case No. 12-16729UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION; JOHN DUMMETT;LEONARD VOLODARSKY; CREG MARONEY,
 Appellants
,v.DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE; ANDDEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ,
 Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court, District of ArizonaDistrict Court No. 2:11-cv-02089
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION FORINJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Paul F. EcksteinD. Andrew GaonaPERKINS COIE LLP2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788Telephone: 602.351.8000Facsimile: 602.648.7000peckstein@perkinscoie.comagaona@perkinscoie.com
 Attorneys for Appellees Democratic National Committee an Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
Case: 12-16729 08/24/2012 ID: 8298852 DktEntry: 6 Page: 1 of 21
 
 
– i –
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, Appellee Democratic National Committeestates that it is not aware of the existence of any parent corporation or any publiclytraded corporation that owns more than 10% of its stock.
Case: 12-16729 08/24/2012 ID: 8298852 DktEntry: 6 Page: 2 of 21
 
 
– 1 –
Introduction
Appellants’ “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” in this Court is yet anotherstep in a coordinated and politically-driven campaign to deprive the Americanpeople of their right to vote for their candidate of choice in the 2012 presidentialelection. The sweeping relief sought by Appellants – which in effect wouldpreclude any state from including President Barack Obama’s name on the ballot inNovember – is predicated
entirely
 
on the frivolous notion that President Obama isnot a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, a legal theory that has beenrejected by each and every court and administrative agency to consider it. Thedistrict court, however, found it unnecessary to reach this spurious contention, andinstead properly dismissed Appellants’ Second Amended Complaint because of itsfailure to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over Appellees.Appellants’ Motion should be denied because: (1) they are certain to fail onthe merits, (2) they will not sustain irreparable harm, (3) the balance of equitiesweighs decidedly against them, and (4) the public interest most certainly does notfavor granting temporary equitable relief that will harm both President Obama andthe tens of millions of Americans who wish to cast a vote in his favor onNovember 6, 2012. This Court should not entertain Appellants’ attempt to abusethe judicial process in furtherance of their misguided political agenda.
Case: 12-16729 08/24/2012 ID: 8298852 DktEntry: 6 Page: 3 of 21

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->