Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 37 - Defense Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Brief to Defendants MTD

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 37 - Defense Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Brief to Defendants MTD

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 893 |Likes:
Published by puzo1
27 Jul 2009: Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 37 Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Brief to Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Electronically filed 27 July 2009.

For more details on this lawsuit see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
27 Jul 2009: Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 37 Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Brief to Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Electronically filed 27 July 2009.

For more details on this lawsuit see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

More info:

Published by: puzo1 on Jul 28, 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

07/25/2010

pdf

text

original

 
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
Case 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS Document 37 Filed 07/27/2009 Page 1 of 10
 
-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
Case 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS Document 37 Filed 07/27/2009 Page 2 of 10
 
1
Plaintiffs also assert that PlaintiffKerchner 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.PlaintiffsInjuries 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
Case 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS Document 37 Filed 07/27/2009 Page 3 of 10

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
BagDadbytheBay liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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