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
11Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AZ - 2012-04-30 - LLF Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

AZ - 2012-04-30 - LLF Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 193 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Apr 30, 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

05/14/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
 LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION;JOHN DUMMETT;LEONARD VOLODARSKY;CREG MARONEY,PlaintiffsCASE NO: 2:11-cv-02089-SRBv.
 
Judge: BoltonNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTYof the USA, Inc.;DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE;DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ,Defendants
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
 
Pursuant to this Court
’s Rules, Plaintiffs submit this Opposition and Memorandumin Opposition to Defendant Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and DefendantSchultz’s motion to dismiss.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.
 
Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No
Federal Court has Ruled on theQuestion Presented Since 1874
The Defendants assert that the issue raised by the Plaintiffs has been
“rejected byevery federal and state court to consider the issue.”
See
Def.’s Mtn. at
4. However, the
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 26 Filed 04/30/12 Page 1 of 18
 
2 of 18
first five paragraphs of Plai
ntiffs’ complaint distinguish the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit
from anyother cases to which the Defendants may be referring.The instant case asserts negligence and fraud against non-governmentaldefendants.
See
Plfs. 2
nd
Amd. Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs are unaware of any case that hasmade such claims, or named non-governmental defendants in relation to their handling of the Article II question presented.Also contrary to Defendants assertion, the Plaintiffs make no claims questioningthe birthplace of Presidential candidate Obama or the citizenship status of his mother.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint
does not assert that Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the UnitedStates. The Plaintiffs make no assertion regarding candidate Obama
’s passports, or social
security number, or any other fact related to candidate Obama, other than the one fact thathis father was not a U.S. citizen. This one fact has been repeatedly admitted by Mr.Obama and by various government agents.
Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, the issue
presented by the Plaintiffs has notbeen substantively ruled upon by any Federal Court since 1874.
See
 
 Minor v. Happersett 
,88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).Earlier this month the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
found that the “question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a
qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and
not trivial.”
See
Ex. 1 at 8-9 (attached).
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 26 Filed 04/30/12 Page 2 of 18
 
3 of 18
II.
 
Defendants’ Legal Conclusion Regarding the Definition of “Natural BornCitizen” is Incorrect
 
Defendants’ motion asserts that “there is no question as to President Obama’sstatus as a ‘natural
-
 born citizen’”…concluding “President Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States.”
Defs. Mot. At 12. The Defendants cite
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 
in support of their conclusion.
 Id 
. citing 169 U.S. 649, 702(1898). However, the holding of 
Wong Kim Ark 
 
(“WKA”)
did not address the definition
of the term “natural born citizen” nor did
it address Article II qualifications to serve asPresident.
 Id.
at 705.The WKA holding did no
t define the term “natural born citizen” because the
WKA facts did not present a question that required interpretation of Article II.
 Id.
at 653.WKA explicitly addressed the scope of 14
th
Amendment citizenship.
 Id.
at 705. However,citizenship under the 14
th
 
Amendment is legally distinct from “natural born citizen” as
required under Article II for eligibility to serve as President.Just twenty-four years prior to WKA the Supreme Court did define
“natural borncitizen” as that term is used in Article II.
 Minor v. Happersett 
, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).Unlike WKA, the
 Minor 
 
Court expressly used its definition of “natural born citizen” to
reach its holding.
 Id 
.
Because the WKA Court did not need to define Article II “natural born citizen” toreach its holding, any inferences drawn from WKA about the term “natural born citizen”
are simply dicta.
 Black’s Law Dictionary
465 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7
th
ed., West 1999)
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 26 Filed 04/30/12 Page 3 of 18

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
lillian-kaufer-9855 added this note
I just love how "non-layers" determine a pleading is good enough. Anyone can write a pleading and make any allegation, but it has to be backed by the facts. Each and every one of these birther piles have been rejected and for good cause. They are all built on a house of cards with a few missing cards on the foundation.
GeorgetownJD added this note
Sorry to inform you, Tallant, but I am a lawyer and from what I read, this argument is a loser. Totally misrepresents Supreme Court rulings.
Al Tallant added this note
I am not a lawyer, but from what I read and could comprehend, it sounds like Obama-or Schultz and the D.N.C. are going to have a tough time escapiing the LAW! Looks good to me. Other people should consider contributing $10 to Legal Liberty Foundation, because it looks like they have the winning arguement-unlike others who filed against Obama. WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU TO EXPOSE AND REMOVE OABAMA?
silverbull8 liked this
Jack Ryan liked this
Jack Ryan liked this
silverbull8 liked this
Jack Ryan liked this
silverbull8 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)//-->