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