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
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2012-05-14 -TN (WDTN) - 23 - CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS Gov.uscourts.tnwd.61189.23.0

2012-05-14 -TN (WDTN) - 23 - CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS Gov.uscourts.tnwd.61189.23.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 112|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
05/14/2012 23 REPLY to Response to Motion re 21 Response in Opposition to Motion, 20 Response in Opposition to Motion, 19 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Dismiss filed by Democratic National Committee, Chip Forrester, National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
05/14/2012 23 REPLY to Response to Motion re 21 Response in Opposition to Motion, 20 Response in Opposition to Motion, 19 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Dismiss filed by Democratic National Committee, Chip Forrester, National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/14/2012)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on May 15, 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

05/16/2012

pdf

text

original

 
253477 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEELIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION,JOHN DUMMETT, LEONARDVOLODARSKY, CREG MARONEY,Plaintiffs,vs.NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFTHE USA, INC., DEMOCRATICNATIONAL COMMITTEE, TENNESSEEDEMOCRATIC PARTY, DEBBIEWASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and CHIPFORRESTER,Defendants.)))))))))))))))))Case No. 2:12-cv-02143-cgcRemoval of Case No. CH-11-1757-3 FromChancery Court for the State of Tennesseein Shelby County
CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS
On March 1, 2012, Defendants the Democratic National Committee (the “DNC”), theTennessee Democratic Party (the “TNDP”), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (“Wasserman Schultz”),and Chip Forrester (“Forrester”) (collectively “Defendants”)
1
, moved this Court on variousgrounds to dismiss this case in its entirety or in part (
see
Dkt. Nos. 4-9). On May 3, 2012,Plaintiffs the Liberty Legal Foundation (“LLF”), John Dummett, Leonard Volodarsky, and CregMaroney (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Responses in Opposition to those Motions (Dkt.Nos. 19-21). Defendants now file this consolidated reply in support of their Motions to Dismiss.
INTRODUCTION
1
Plaintiffs also name the National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. as a defendant, but this
 
organization isapparently a sham organization, which may be affiliated with the Shelby County Republican Party, and therefore, asexplained in greater detail herein, is not a proper party to this lawsuit. Accordingly, they will not be treated as aproper defendant.
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 23 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID 224
 
253477 2
Despite Plaintiffs’ abstract arguments and conflated musings on President Obama’sfitness for office, this case is easily resolved without resort to the merits. The dispositive issue inthis case is who the arbiter of presidential qualifications is. The answer is irrefutable:
not 
 
Plaintiffs
.The conclusion is irrefutable because it has been reached by
every
federal court toaddress the issue. This is not the first, nor even the twentieth, case challenging whetherPresident Obama satisfies Article II’s requirements to hold the Office of President of the UnitedStates. However, as even Plaintiffs must concede, “[e]xactly zero federal courts have ruled onthe merits of applying Article II eligibility requirements to candidate Obama.” (Dkt. No. 19 at2). This statistic is not born of coincidence; it is the result mandated by law. The majority of courts addressing this issue have held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge PresidentObama’s qualifications, and the remaining courts have similarly dismissed these suits on otherprocedural grounds.
2
 Plaintiffs attempt to downplay this mountain of case law by distinguishing their claimsfrom all the others. However, Plaintiffs’ claims are unremarkable. Defendants submit this Replyto briefly highlight the homogenous nature of Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to all those that havebeen previously dismissed, and to urge the Court to dismiss this case as well.
ARGUMENT
The vast majority of courts faced with qualification challenges regarding PresidentObama have dispensed with the claims early in litigation due to plaintiffs’ lack of standing. Theinstant case is no different, and all claims against all Defendants should also be dismissed on
2
 
Two state tribunals have reached the merits of analogous claims and summarily rejected them.
See Ankeny v.Governor,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding that President Obama is a natural born citizenqualified to hold the office of President of the United States);
Farrar, et. al. v. Obama
, Dkt. No. 1215136-60 (Ga.Secretary of State, 2012) (same).
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 23 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID 225
 
253477 3
standing grounds. Additionally, Defendants briefly address alternative bases for dismissal.Regardless of the rationale, the end result is the same – Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed.
I.
 
Plaintiffs Fail To Cure The Standing Problems That Resulted In The DismissalOf Other Cases Challenging President Obama’s Qualifications
As Defendants argued in their Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 5, most suits challengingPresident’s Obama’s qualifications to hold the Office of the Presidency have been dismissed forplaintiffs’ lack of standing.
See, e.g.
,
Drake v. Obama
, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011);
Kerchner v. Obama
, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010);
 Berg v. Obama
, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009);
Cohen v.Obama
, 359 F. App’x 40 (10th Cir. 2010);
Craig v. United States
, 340 F. App’x 471 (10th Cir.2009);
Taitz v. Obama
, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, (D.D.C. 2010);
Kerchner v. Obama
, 669 F. Supp. 2d477, 481 (D.N.J. 2009);
 Bowhall v. Obama
, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127036 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 30,2010);
 Barnett v. Obama
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206 (C.D. Cal.
 
2009);
Cook v. Good 
, 2009U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126144 (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2009);
 Dawson v. Obama
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS16161 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009);
 Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court 
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3057(N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2009).Plaintiffs allege that this suit is different because, unlike prior plaintiffs, Plaintiff Dummet is a candidate for the Presidency.
3
However, this argument is based on amisapprehension of the law. It is true that some courts have recognized that political candidateshave standing to challenge an opponent’s qualifications, commonly called “competitivestanding.” As the name suggests, competitive standing requires
competition
between thecandidates.
See, e.g.
,
Owen v. Mulligan
, 640 F.2d 1130, 1132-1133 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding that
3
 
Defendants assume, for purposes of the instant Motions, that Plaintiff Dummet has filed papers to run for Presidentwith the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). Plaintiffs make no argument that Plaintiffs Volodarsky orMaroney, who are not candidates, satisfy standing requirements, presumably as a concession that they do not havestanding. In fact, Plaintiffs appear to concede, although inartfully, that all Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Dummet lack standing to pursue their claims.
See
Dkt. No. 19 at 8 (“One Plaintiff with Standing Allows the Case to Proceed”).Accordingly, although Defendants believe all Plaintiffs should be dismissed for lack of standing, at a minimumPlaintiffs Voloardsky and Maroney must be dismissed for a lack of standing.
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 23 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID 226

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Al Tallant added this note
I WILL WAIT TO HEAR THE RESPONSE FROM LEGAL LIBERT FOUNDATION. MANY POINTS ARGUED OR PRESENTED BY DEFENDENTS SEEM QUITE FLAWED.
silverbull8 liked this
Jack Ryan liked this
silverbull8 liked this
Jack Ryan liked this

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)//-->