• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
RALPH J. MARRA, JR. Document Electronically FiledActing United States AttorneyELIZABETH A. PASCALAssistant U.S. AttorneyCamden Federal Buildingand U.S. Courthouse401 Market StreetP.O. Box 2098Camden, NJ 08101(856) 757-5412Attorneys for DefendantsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY :Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., :Lowell T. Patterson, :Darrell James LeNormand, and :Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., ::Plaintiffs, : HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE:v.::Barack Hussein Obama II, :President Elect of the:United States of America, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 09-253President of the United States :of America, and Individually, :a/k/a Barry Soetoro, :United States of America, et al.,::Defendants.: ___________________________________:DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN OPPOSITIONTO PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THEIRSECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT NUNC PRO TUNCINTRODUCTIONOn January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.,Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen,Jr. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the present action
 
-2-challenging President Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the Officeof President of the United States. Dkt. Entry 1. On June 26,2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this action. Dkt. Entry27. On July 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their opposition toDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. Entry 34. OnJuly 22, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Cross-Motion for Leave to File aSecond Amended Verified Complaint nunc pro tunc. Dkt. Entry 36.Defendants now reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to their Motion toDismiss and oppose Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Amend. For thereasons stated in Defendants’ moving brief to dismiss the complaintand herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint should begranted and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Amend should be denied.ARGUMENTI.Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Maintain this Action.In their opposition brief, Plaintiffs offer the followingpoints in response to Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs lackstanding: (1) none of the cases cited by the Defendants in itsmoving brief address the specific factual and/or legal issuespresented in this case, Pl.s’ Br. at 7; (2) the cases cited byDefendants disposing of challenges to President Obama’s citizenshipare factually distinguishable because President Obama was only acandidate when those lawsuits were decided or only involvedsecretaries of state, id.; (3) even though Plaintiffs’ allegedinjuries are shared in common with the public (“the whole”), the
 
1
Plaintiffs also assert that Plaintiff Kerchner should beable to assert the rights of other members of the military. Pl.s’Br. at 16. However, prudential standing requirements dictate thata party cannot assert the legal rights of third parties. SeeValley Forge Christian Coll. v. American United for Separation ofChurch & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982).-3-Plaintiffs as “parts” of that “whole” have also suffered an injury(i.e., a violation of their constitutionally protected libertyinterests), Pl.s’ Br. at 8-9; (4) the Plaintiffs, as parties to acontract (the Constitution), have standing to enforce it in court,Pl.s’ Br. at 10; and (5) Plaintiff Kerchner, as a retired member ofthe military subject to recall to active duty, has alleged aparticularized injury-in-fact, Pl.s’ Br. at 13-16.
1
Points 1, 2,and 4 above do not merit discussion because they do not rebutDefendants’ arguments in its moving brief. Defendants will brieflyaddress points 3 and 5 below.A.Plaintiffs’ Injuries Are Widely-Shared with Others.Plaintiffs allege that even though their claims of injury maybe widely-shared with others, that does not mean that they lackstanding. Pl.s’ Br. at 8-9. Plaintiffs proffer that just becausethe general public shares their injuries does not mean that they donot have injuries particular to them. Id. However, to acceptPlaintiffs’ interpretation of the injury-in-fact component ofArticle III standing would render it meaningless. Moreover, theUnited States Supreme Court has rejected that very argument.In Ex Parte Levitt, plaintiff, a citizen and a member of the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...