Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Statement of Interest (#18, July 7, 2009)

US Statement of Interest (#18, July 7, 2009)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16 |Likes:
Published by tesibria
Keyes v. Obama (CD Cal). Statement of Interest filed by United States in case/in response to Request for Default.
Keyes v. Obama (CD Cal). Statement of Interest filed by United States in case/in response to Request for Default.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: tesibria on Jul 08, 2009
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

07/13/2009

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
THOMAS P. O’BRIENUnited States AttorneyLEON W. WEIDMANAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Civil DivisionROGER E. WEST (State Bar No. 58609)Assistant United States AttorneyFirst Assistant Chief, Civil DivisionDAVID A. DeJUTE (State Bar No. 153527)Assistant United States AttorneyRoom 7516, Federal Building300 North Los Angeles StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574Facsimile: (213) 894-7819Email:roger.west4@usdoj.govEmail:david.dejute@usdoj.govAttorneys for the United StatesUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISIONALAN 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, 2009TIME: 8:30 a.m.CTRM: 9DHon. David O. Carter
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OFTHE UNITED STATES
 
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 18 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 5
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
COMES NOW 
the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, byand through its undersigned counsel, and respectfully files thisStatement of Interest:
I.Plaintiffs Are Required To Comply With The Service ProvisionsContained In Rule 4(i) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
 While the Complaint is not a model of clear pleading, whendistilled to its essence, it appears that this case seeks ajudgment declaring whether Barack H. Obama is eligible to bePresident of the United States. See, e.g., ¶¶ 36 and 37 of theComplaint. As such, it is indisputable that this case constitutesan action against an “Officer of the United States.” Fed.R.Civ.P.4(i). It follows ineluctably, therefore, that service must beeffected pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4(i) of the FederalRules 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 theservice requirements of Rule 4(i). As Plaintiffs acknowledge, Rule4(i) requires, among other things, that “a party must serve theUnited States
and also serve
the officer or employee under Rule4(e), (f), or (g).” See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, 2,quoting Rule 4(i)(3)(emphasis added). In other words, to effectproper 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 theDistrict in which the suit is pending. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 18 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 5
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282
4(i)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). Among other defects, Plaintiffs have neverserved the Office of the United States Attorney for the CentralDistrict of California as required by Rule 4(i). On this groundalone the Court should find that the service of processrequirements under the Federal Rules have not been met.
III.Even Assuming,
 Arguendo 
, That Plaintiffs Were Only Required ToComply 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 eligibilityof President Obama under Article II, they are not suing PresidentObama in his official capacity, but, rather, merely as anindividual. From this, Plaintiffs further assert that they are,therefore, required only to comply with the service requirementscontained in Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Plaintiffs finally assert in this regard that they have compliedspecifically with Rule 4(e)(2)(C).In support of their assertion that they have complied withRule 4(e)(2)(C), Plaintiffs proffer the “General Affidavit” of MaryAnn McKiernan. In this document, which Plaintiffs attach to theirMotion, Ms. McKierman states that on February 10, 2009, sheattempted to serve “a Pleading” (not further identified) toPresident Obama at the White House. She further states that shegave the envelope with “the Pleading” to a Secret Service Agent ata gate just outside the White House. She thereafter avers that theSecret Service Agents told her that she could not serve the papersthere. She states that she then called the White House, and was
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 18 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 5

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)//-->