1 Third, Plaintiffs' Opposition does not dispute that the SAC fails to allege that the
2 DNC Defendants have any contacts with the State of Arizona, to say nothing of the
3 "minimum contacts" that are required by fundamental
principles of due process. At best,
4 Plaintiffs' allegations support the conclusion that the DNC Defendants may, at some
5 indeterminate point in the future, purposefully avail themselves of the privileges of
6 conducting certain activities in Arizona. But the Due Process Clause does not permit such
7 speculation, and as a result, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in
8 this case.
9 Finally, Plaintiffs' attempts to distinguish the claims made in the SAC from those
10 made in the panoply of federal court, state court, and state administrative decisions that
11 have rejected similar claims that President Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the
12 United States ring hollow. At its heart, and despite the fact that it asserts causes of action
13 sounding in tort against non-governental defendants, the SAC centers on the purely
14 legal question of whether President Obama - indisputably born in the United States to a
15 mother who was a citizen of the United States and a father who was not - is a "natural
16 born citizen" and thus eligible to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs do not
17 (and cannot) dispute that each and every court or administrative agency to examine this
18 precise question has determined that he is, i nor have they advanced any reasonable
19 argument that this Court should be the first to hold otherwise.
The DNC Defendants direct the Court to the authorities cited in its Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 24 at 12 & n.8), and bring to the Court's attention additional
authorities standing for the same proposition. See Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-
JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that "(i)t is well settled
that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens" and that
plaintiffs contentions otherwise are "without merit"), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4thCir., fied Jan. 30, 2012); Galasso v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12 (N.J. Office of Admin.
Law Feb. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama's 2012 nominatingposition and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born
citizen" eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark) ), decision adopted as
final (N.J. Sec'y of State Apr. 12,2012). Copies of
the Tisdale and Galasso decisions are
attached hereto as Exhibits D and E.
Case 2:11-cv-02089-SRB Document 27 Filed 05/09/12 Page 3 of 6