Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FL 2012-06-18 Collette v. Obama Motion in opposition to Motion to dismiss amended complaint

FL 2012-06-18 Collette v. Obama Motion in opposition to Motion to dismiss amended complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,128|Likes:
Published by Doctor Conspiracy

More info:

Published by: Doctor Conspiracy on Jun 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Civil Division
, et al.Case Number:
512012CA 2041WS
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2012
3:30 pm
J2Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
Jerry Collette,
plaintiff, oppose the motions to dismiss (“motions”) my first amendedcomplaint (“complaint”), one, dated May 20, 2012, on behalf of defendant
Barack Obama
(“Obama”), and the other, dated May 11, 2012, on behalf of defendant
State ExecutiveCommittee of the Florida Democratic Party
(“Committee”), as follows:
This court is, already, at a major juncture in this important constitutional matter and faces twoantipodal choices. It could choose to, either:Go down in obscurity with the 100+ other courts who have, in one way or another, sweptunder the rug the key issues, which this and similar cases have presented, and take anyone or more of the various ways out which defendants have offered in their motions; or Go down in history as the first court to give serious consideration to the significant issues presented here.If, as I pray, the court chooses the latter path, it would:Right now:Deny the defendants’ motions to dismiss; andAllow the case to proceed on the merits;Later, as the case progresses:Order defendant Obama to make his
government and hospital birthrecords available for this court to see; and
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 1 of 24
Seriously analyze the 400+ years of law on natural born citizenship, as it pertainsto the eligibility to hold the office of president; andUltimately, make a determination on defendant Obama’s eligibility, based upon:The facts and the law; rather thanPolitical expediency.
As set forth below, the issues raised by defendants are insufficient to be dispositive of this case,or any portion thereof, on motions to dismiss.
Response to Defendants’ Preliminary Statements
1.Defendants began their preliminary statements communicating with truth and candor,accurately depicting reality to the court, and continued to do so for two completesentences.
Defendants’ Truth and Candor Was Very Short Lived
2.By the third sentence
 of their preliminary statements, defendants had already begun to:a.Throw candor aside; b.Blatantly mischaracterize reality; andc.Flim-flam this court.History in Other Courts of the Issues Presented3.Defendants stated that every state and federal court that has considered the issues presented in my complaint have rejected them.4.While that statement may be true, technically, it is, nonetheless, quite misleading.
Sentence 3 of paragraph 1 of defendant Obama’s preliminary statement, and sentence 1 of paragraph 2 of defendant Committee’s preliminary statement.Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 2 of 24
5.Defendants left out significant details which, once told, paint a very different picture, onethat more accurately depicts reality.6.First of all, across this country, there are still about ten pending cases on similar issues.7.Furthermore, defendants failed to disclose to this court how little consideration other courts have actually given to these important constitutional issues.8.Of all the cases on similar issues which have been brought before other courts:a.Only about a handful of the courts involved have even considered, on the merits,the key issues presented; and b.To date, not one single court has yet:i.Reviewed (or had an adverse party or expert witness review) defendantObama’s
government or hospital birth documents, which wouldeasily resolve, once and for all, the question of his birthplace; or ii.Analyzed the 400+ years of law which, as I and others who have broughtsimilar claims contend, shows that the holding in
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898), does not apply to natural born citizenship as it pertains to presidential eligibility.9.The reality is that, to date, only very few courts have even given cursory consideration to,and no court has yet seriously considered, the key issues presented in this case, on themerits. As important as they are, the issues involved are political hot potatoes, and untilnow, courts have been reluctant to explore them fully, if at all.
Defendants Spuriously MischaracterizedMy Assertions As Baseless
10.Defendants closed the third sentence
of their preliminary statements by telling this courtthat my assertions questioning the eligibility of defendant Obama are
thenended their preliminary statements with that same idea, only slightly rephrased.
The exact wording was, “Plaintiff’s allegations have no basis in fact or in law.”Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 3 of 24

You're Reading a Free Preview

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