FILED PATRICIA NOLAND CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT 2129/20124:15:51 PM

ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY HON. RICHARD E. GORDON ruDGE CASE NO. C-20121317

DATE: KENNETH ALLEN, Plaintiff, VS. BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants. ORDER IN CHAMBERS Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs

February 29,2012

"Ballot Challenge Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(B) and Article II

Section 5 of the United States Constitution and Rule 8." Among other things, Plaintiff claims that President Obama should be barred from appearing on Arizona's 2012 Presidential ballot. (Complaint at 3.) Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a status conference on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 3:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall ensure that proper service of this Order is made on all Defendants.

...
cc: Daniel S. Jurkowitz, Esq. Karen S. Friar, Esq. Kenneth Allen

Mary Dimond Judicial Administrative Assistant

1 2 3
4

Kenneth L Allen 10055 E Gray Hawk Dr Tucson Arizona 85730 520-514-9704 kenandbetseyallen@msn.com in Proper Person

5 6
7

Superior Court for the Court of Arizona Pima County
) Case NoL20121317 ) Plaintiff,

8 9 10
11

Kenneth Allen

vs.
Arizona Democratic Party on behalf of Barack Obama; Brad R Nelson; et. al.

) Objection to defendants motion to ) Dismiss ) under Rule 12(b)(6) and 7(b)
) )

12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

)

~-------------------------------

Defendants

) )

Introduction Comes now Plaintiff Kenneth L. Allen in opposition to Defendant Arizona Democratic Party ("the Party") Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Defendant cannot guarantee to the Plaintiff nor the citizens of Pima County that it will not commit fraud as it certifies that candidate Barack H. Obama is constitutionally eligible for the office of President of the United States. In addition, Plaintiff objects to Defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff has a right to submit this ballot challenge complaint, has submitted a meritorious claim upon which relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff has served the appropriate parties in this complaint. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion to dismiss is supported by the following argument, points, and legal authorities.

20 21
22 23 24 25

..

26
27 28

1

1 2

Argument in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss I. Plaintiff has a r.ight to file this claim

3
4

The Plaintiff has a right to file this challenge under the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and under federal common law. Specifically the First Amendment provides for the protection of speech, religion, and assembly, and guarantees the right of petition for redress. A Court's policy of secrecy in failing to address legitimate citizen complaints deprives judicial elections of meaning. Voters

5
6 7

8
9

10
11

cannot know the stance a given Justice has taken on issues of concern, nor can they learn how each Justice has voted on petitions submitted by large campaign contributors. As Justice Oliver Wendell Homes wrote,"[11t is of the highest moment that those who administer justice should always act under the sense of public responsibility, and that every citizen should be able to satisfy himself with his own eyes as to the mode in which a public duty is performed." Cowley v. Pulsifier, 137 Mass. 392, 394 (1884) quoted in NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court, 980 P.2d 337, 351 n. 14 (Cal. 1999). For this reason, the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution creates a presumption of public access to judicial documents and proceedings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564 (1980); Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)("Press Enterprise I"); Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1,8 (1986)("Press Enterprise II). "The first amendment's broad shield for freedom of speech and of the press is not limited to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

..

right to talk and to print. The value of these rights would be circumscribed were those who wish to disseminate information denied access to it, for the freedom to speak is of

2

1 2

little value ifthere is nothing to say." In re Express-News Corporation, 695 F.2d 807, 808 (5 Gir. 1982). "Democracies die behind closed doors .... When government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. The 2 Cir. 2002). Framers of the First Amendment. ..protected the people against secret government," Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, _ F.3d _,2002 WL 1972919 at *1 (6th
th

3
4

5
6 7

The reasoning of Richmond and its progeny demands the disclosure of votes by elected judges, for the public good served by the accountability of elected officials cannot be denied, and no legitimate state interest militates in favor of hidden justice. "There is a presumption of public access to judicial decisions in part because public monitoring of the courts is an essential feature of democratic control and judicial accountability." U.S. v. Salemme, 978 F.Supp. 364,372 (D. Mass. 1997). Even Barack Obama cannot be judicially exempt from providing proof of his identity. As an American I have an absolute right to ask these hard questions of a candidate and to utilize judicial forums to seek redress if the questions are not answered .. In addition to the First Amendment, federal common law also establishes a right of access to judicial records, Nixon v. Warner, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), which "serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including

8
9

10 11 12

13
14 15

16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24

a better perception of its fairness." Sec'Urities and Exchange Commission v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F..2d 845 (5th Cir. 1993), quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3rd Gir. 1988).

25 26 27 28

3

1 2

II. Plaintiff States a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted and thus the motion to dismiss should be denied. The Defendants complain that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when one or more of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) when on its face the complaint reveals no law supports plaintiffs claim; (2) when on its face the complaint reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; and (3)when some fact disclosed in the complaint necessarily defeats plaintiffs claim. Oates v. JAG,lnc., 314 N.C. 276, 278, 333 S.E. 2d 222,224 (1985). Plaintiff would also like to add and affirm which elements are necessary for a tort of infliction of emotional distress that defendants claim Plaintiff is causing by 'harassing candidate Barack H. Obama: 1) Extreme and outrageous conduct, 2) which is intended to cause and does cause 3) severe emotional distress to another. The standards under Rule12(b)(6) were construed liberally stating, 'The question presented by a motion to dismiss is whether, as a matter of Jaw, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" "In analyzing the complaint, [the court] will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ... the issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim; Associations v. Century Village, Inc., 597 F.2d 1002, 1012-13 (5 Cir. 1979) .. uA ) motion under 12(b )(1) should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Home Builders Association of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 F.3d
th

3
4

5 6
7

8 9 10
11

12 13 14 15

16
17

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). The threshold for dismissal under Fed.RCiv.P. 12(b)(6) is high. UtA]complaint

should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that

4

1

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46 (1957). "In analyzing the complaint, [the court] will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ... the issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim." Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5 Cir. 1999). "A motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) is viewed with disfavor and rarely granted," Benal v. Freeport-Morgan, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 164 (5thCir. 1999). See
th

2 3
4

5 6
7

8 9 10
11

also, Ramming v, United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) cert. denied sub nom Cloud v. U.S., 122 S,Ct. 2665 (2002), Similarly, motions to dismiss under Fed.RCiv.P. 12(b)(1) "should be granted

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

sparingly," and only "where adequate time is given to complete discovery and all the jurisdictional facts are fully developed and placed before the court." Martin v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc., 665 F,2d 598, 602 n. 1 (5th Cir. Unit A 1982) (quoting Chatham Condominium Associations
V.

Century Village, Inc., 597 F,2d 1002, 1012-13 (5th Cir.

1979).) "A motion under 12(b)(1) should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Home Builders Association of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5thCir, 1998), "[D]is missal of a claim for want of subject matter jurisdiction is only appropriate

19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

where the claim is insubstantial and friVolous, or is immaterial, or the claim is made solely to contrive jurisdiction," Taylor v, St.Clair, 685 F,2d 982,986 (5th Cir.1982), In determining jurisdiction the court "may evaluate (1) the complaint alone (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or (3) the

5

.-

,

1

complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts," Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001), but "[n]nevertheless, [the court] must accept all factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true." Id. III. The Plaintiff Has Meritorious Claims for Relief The First Amendment right of citizens to access to judicial information and proceedings has been clearly established since the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564 (1980) (right of access to criminal trials), and was subsequently reaffirmed in Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) ("Press Enterprise I") (right of access to voir dire proceedings) and Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1,8 (1986) ("Press Enterprise II) (right of access to preliminary hearings). "[T]he First Amendment protects the public and the press from abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their government, including the Judicial Branch ... " Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 584 (Stevens, J., concurring.). See also In the Matter of Dallas Morning News Company, 916 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1990) (First Amendment right of access applies to voir dire proceedings); United States v. Ghagra, 701 F.2d 354 (5th Gir. 1983) (First Amendment right of access applies to bail reduction hearings); United States v, Edwards, 823 F.2d 111, 118 (5th Gir. 1987) (First concerning potential jury misconduct and presumption that transcript will be released). Justice Brennan explained that the First Amendment creates a right of access in order to safeguard the democratic process itself:

2 3
4

5 6
7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6

.----

1

[T]he first Amendment embodies more than a commitment to free expression and communicative exchange for their own sakes; it has a structural role to play in securing and fostering our republican system of government Implicit in this structural

2 3
4

role is not only 'the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' but also the antecedent assumption that valuable public debate - as well as other civic behavior - must be informed. Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at

5 6
7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

586 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis in the original)(internal citations omitted). This principle applies with equal force to civil and criminal proceedings, see Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 599 (Stewart, J., concurring), although the First Amendment right of access cases decided by the Supreme Court to date have involved only criminal proceedings. Lower courts have routinely applied the First Amendment right of access to civil cases. See In Re Grand Jury Subpoena v. Doe No.1, 103 F.3d 234 (2d Cir.1996); Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3rd Cir. 1984); Grove Fresh Distributors v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F .3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994); In Re Iowa Freedom of Information Council, 724 F.2d 658 (8th Cir. 1984); NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court, 980 P..2d 337 (Cal. 1999); State ex. rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Mcintosh, 340 SO.2d 904 (Fla. 1976); State of Maryland v. Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc., 75 Md.App. 647 (Md. App. 1988); see also Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 801 (11 th Cir. 1983) (First Amendment right of access applies to civil proceedings, at least when they "pertain to the release or incarceration of prisoners and the conditions of their confinement"). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not ruled on the First Amendment right of access in civil cases, though it has suggested that such a right

26
27 28

7

1

exists. In Doe v, Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 (Fifth CiL Unit A 1981), a civil proceeding in which the plaintiffs wished to keep their identities secret, the Court cited Richmond for the proposition that "First Amendment guarantees are implicated when a court decides to restrict public scrutiny of judicial proceeding," Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 (Fifth CiL Unit A 1981), and noted that Richmond left open the right of access to civil

2 3
4

5
6 7

proceedings. Id at n, 10. Relying on this, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has held that the First Amendment right of access applies in civil cases. Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, 933 F.Supp. 647 (S.D. Texas 1996). The First Amendment right of access has been held to encompass a broad range of civil documents and proceedings. See, e.q., Del Papa v. Steffen, 915 P. 2d 245, 24849 (Nevada 1996) (First Amendment requires public access to judicial discipline proceeding). See also Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105, 109 (9th CiL 1992) (First Amendment could require disclosure of list of almond growers eligible to vote in referendum of producers); Society of Professional Journalists v. Secretary of Labor, 616 F.Supp. 569, 578 (D. Utah 1985) (First Amendment requires access to administrative fact-finding hearings of state Mine Safety and Health Administration IV. Plaintiff has followed ARS 16-351 and has included indispensable parties in this complaint Plaintiff argues that service was.proper pursuant to ARS 16-351 B. Office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable. In any action challenging a nomination petition, the

8
9

10 11 12

13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20

21 22 23 24 25
26

27 28

following persons are indispensable parties to the action and shall be named and served as defendants: The defendants claim that they were not properly served for

8

1 2

Sarack H Obama. However the US Attorney was also served, is the proper party to serve on behalf of Sarack H Obama. The Secretary if State himself said the ARS 16-351 B was the proper complaint for action against a candidate, and in this case Barack Obama is a candidate. In addition, Brad R Nelson is the indispensable Party for the county of Pima, I am a

3
4

5 6
7

resident of Pima county and not a resident in any other county in the state and under section 88 (D) with the board of supervisors and the recorder of each county or the clerk of each city or town responsible for preparing the ballots. That would contain the challenged candidate's name and each person filing a nomination petition under this chapter appoints the officer with whom the candidate files the nomination paper and petitions as the person's agent to receive service of process: that would be the Arizona Democrats. Summarizing, Brad R Nelson is the election person in Pima county and recorder in charge of elections and records thereof; the Democratic party is the party of interest and Barack H Obama is the defendant who was served both through the US Attorneys office and the democrats office in Phoenix in charge of Sarack Obamas Caucus ..The Pima county Democrats would not accept service as for the secretary of state he isn't mentioned. Defendants admit on page 4, line 14 of their motion to dismiss that the state party chairman appoints the officer with"whom the candidate files the nomination paper and petitions as the person's agent to receive service of process that's the Arizona State democrats, not the Secretary of State or anyone else.

8 9 10
11

12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9

1 2

Process in an action challenging a nomination petition shall be served immediately after the action is filed and in no event more than twenty-four hours after filing the action, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays. Immediately on receipt of process served on the officer as agent for a person filing a nomination petition, the officer shall mail the process to the person and shall notify the person by

3
4 5

6
7

telephone of the filing of the action the officer appointed to file the nomination paper is one of the Arizona Democrats. The plaintiff hasn't named any other county in the state as the indispensable party. The defendants know that as a resident of Pima county Plaintiff cannot name the other 15 counties as defendants as Plaintiff doesn't vote in those counties, Barack Obama can be removed from the Pima county ballot and this Judge has the authority to remove Obama from the ballot.

8 9 10
11

12 13
14

15

VI. Defendants Misstate Plaintiff's Case Defendants begin by misstating Plaintiff's case in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities, its allegations, and the rights of Plaintiff to bring a ballot challenge pursuant to A.R.S. 16-351(8) and Article" Constitution. Section 5 Clause I ofthe United States

16
17 18 19 20 21 22

A ballot challenge is specifically allowed when the candidate for office

cannot conclusively demonstrate that he meets the qualifications of the office required. Specifically, the United States Constitution requires that the candidate for the office of

23 24 25 26 27 28

the President be a natural born citizen ,"not just a citizen, and the United States Supreme Court has defined a natural born citizen as those born in the United States to parents who are themselves citizens (see U.S. Constitution and Minor v Happersett 88
U.S. 162 (1875)).

10

I

~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2

VII. Defendants Erroneously Rely on Case Law that is Irrelevant to this Complaint. Defendants, in a footnote (fn3 p 2), erroneously claim that candidate Obama's eligibility for president has been addressed already by a series of cases across the country, cases which have never argued the merits of candidate Obama's status as a

3
4

5 6
7

natural born citizen, and cases which have never addressed specifically a ballot challenge. Defendants compare apples to oranges. Contrary to Defendants haughty claim, there is no legal authority or court in the country that has ruled on or definitively stated that candidate Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency
1 •

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

VIII. Defendants "Make Up" a Definition of Natural Born Citizen that Conflicts with Existing Case Law, cannot be supported by the facts and Cite No legal authority for their Definition.

While erroneously relying on case law that does not address the merits of the definition of natural born citizen, Defendants make up a definition by stating that candidate Obama is a 'natural born citizen' because he was born in the United States (Hawaii) to an American citizen mother, that is, a single citizen parent (Defendants at 2, 1-7). Defendants proffer Exhibit A, a purported copy of candidate Obama's birth certificate, as proof of his birth in the United States. Plaintiff asks this Court to take judicial notice of the March 1, 2012 findings of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio which state that there is probable cause that the Hawaii birth certificate proffered as evidence that candidate Obama was born in the

21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

..

1 See Defendant's exhibit A. As this Court is aware, an election does not trump t.he requirements of the Constitution, and there is no telling if the American public had been aware of candidate Obama's lack of constitutional eligibility if he would have even been on any state ballot in 2008.

11

1

United States to a U,S. citizen mother is a forgery and thus a fraudulent document", Defendants cannot definitively state that candidate Obama was born anywhere in the United States, which is just one of the characteristics of a natural born citizen. Defendants also erroneously interpret Minor v Happersett and include the Fourteenth Amendment as necessary to the discussion of the term natural born citizen (fn6 p 5).

2 3
4

5 6
7

The Fourteenth Amendment is not relevant to the discussion of natural born citizen as it concerns only the requirements to be a citizen of the United States; did not refer to or modify Article II; and never once mentions 'natural born citizen'." The purported Birth Certificate of candidate Obama (Exhibit (A) has been proven to be fraudulent through investigation of Sheriff Joe Arapaio, Because the defendants have brought the argument about the birth certificate here they should provided all documents for inspection and have made this issue relevant in this case." IX. Defendants claim a right to choose the Party's candidate-irrespective qualifications-to place on the Arizona ballot. of

8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Defendants ask this Court to dismiss this ballot challenge because it has the right to choose the Party's candidate whether it has proof of the candidate's eligibility or not
2 On March I, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated that "President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represent.ed by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public on April 27, 2011. The results of this months long study concluded that the citizens of Maricopa County had been defrauded by the presentation of a forged document. 3 Indeed, in the preface to the Fourteenth Amendment, the definition of who is natural born citizen is repeated by John A. Bingham as understood in the Constitution. Moreover, Minor v Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1875)) was decided after the enactment of Fourteenth Amendment and made no reference to that amendment. See Congo Globe, 39th, r= Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf U.S. Const, XIVth Amend 4 Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of the other documents Sheriff Joe Arpaio has requested including the state of Hawaii's proof of chain of custody of the Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm and electronic records; Kapiolani Hospital records showing the care of patient Stanley Ann Dunham and the birth of Barack Obama. These records are necessary to prove that fraud has not been committed in the creation of candidate Obama's alleged birth certificate.

25 26 27

28

12

1 2

By stating this, the Party represents that it is representing candidate Obama's efforts to secure a place on the Arizona ballot. Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion to dismiss because Plaintiff does not believe that the Party has a right to defraud the citizens of Arizona by putting forth a candidate that does not meet the qualifications of the office sought. Defendants have offered no proof of candidate Obama's constitutional

3
4

5 6
7

qualifications for the office, rely on patently fraudulent documentation (fn 5 p 5), and demonstrate disrespect of the Plaintiff and the voters of Arizona who have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible candidate. Defendants also demonstrate spurious

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

disrespect for Constitution of the United States (fn 3,4 P 2).

x.

Defendants wrongfully claim the lack of inclusion of indispensible

parties.

Defendants move for dismissal based on the claim that indispensible parties are
. not

included in Plaintiffs complaint

However, Defendants cannot have it both ways. represent-- the candidate for

Defendants may not claim the sale authority to pick-and

office without ascertaining the constitutional qualifications of the candidate and then claim that another higher authority-the
. responsibility

Arizona Secretary of State-bears

the sale

of just accepting the Party's choice. Plaintiff believes that if the Party is to

assert its sale authority without interference to pick a candidate, and that if the Party is going to put forth a constitutionally ineligible candidate, that it has failed the Plaintiff,

23 24 25 26 27 28

citizens of Pima County, and citizens of Arizona by refusing to validate the candidate's qualifications. Defendants would require Plaintiff, Arizona Secretary of State, and the Board of Supervisors of Arizona's fifteen counties, to simply accept the Party's candidate without

13

1

question. Again, Plaintiff argues that either the Party has the responsibility to validate a candidate-without interference-- or it doesn't. Which is it? To argue now that others

2
3 4

have responsibility for the Party's choice is and obvious delay tactic and purposely interferes with the timing, nature, and intent of a ballot challenge. Nevertheless, if this Court determines additional parties are necessary to this

5 6
7

case that the case should not be dismissed but instead be enlarged to include those parties. The Constitution of the United States is too important to leave within the hands of a single Party which refuses to validate a candidate's eligibility for office. The Party has a responsibility to the citizens of Arizona, indeed every state, a constitutionally ,eligible candidate for the office of the President.

8 9 10
11

12
13
14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

,XI. Defendants erroneously state that Plaintiff has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted because candidate Obama was 'born in Hawaii'

The purported Birth Certificate of candidate Obama (Exhibit (A) has been proven to be fraudulent through investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arapaio. Because the defendants have brought the argument about the birth certificate here, and have made this issue relevant to the case, they should provide all documents requested by Sheriff Arpaio for inspection before this Court. XII. Defendants Erroneously suggest the Fourteenth Amendment grants 'natural born citizen' status to candidate Obama .

..

Defendant erroneously focuses on the case of Wong Kim Ark (69 U. S • 649
(18 98) ) and the term 'citizen', failing to recognize that the case is completely separate

from and did not decide that Wong Kim Ark was a 'natural born citizen'. Wong Kim Ark
28

14

1

became a citizen, not a natural born citizen, of the United States." Defendants also claim that candidate Obama is a natural born citizen based on his birth in the United States, a statement that is now without merit in light of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arapio's report (id note 2). Because Defendant cannot prove that candidate Obama is a natural born citizen

2 3
4

5 6
7

of the United States as required by the Constitution, and cannot prove he was born in the United States, this case should proceed on the merits of the questions initially asked of this Court. Absent this case, Defendant is likely to commit fraud on this Plaintiff, the citizens of Pima County, state and county officials of Arizona, and the citizens of Arizona by failing to conclusively validate the Party's candidate for the president.

8 9

10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

XIII. Defendants allege that Plaintiff is harassing the Candidate Barack H Obama

The defendants have made the claim that Plaintiff has harassed the candidate Barack H Obama. That statement is false. In 1971 Plaintiff took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States as he was being processed into the United States Army. The oath never expires and it is my duty as an American citizen and veteran to be watchful of the constitution. Plaintiff will not be muzzled or censored by the defendants. In America we enjoy th"e inalienable right to the First Amendment.

25 26 27 28
5 Wong Kim Ark's children would married an American citizen.

be natural

born

citizens

of the United

States

if Wong

Kim Ark

15

1

CONCLUSION

2 3 4 5

Plaintiff's case should not be dismissed because Plaintiff has in good faith brought forth a legal ballot challenge based on the facts showing that the Party has not conclusively proven that candidate Barack Obama is constitutionally qualified for the

6
7

office he seeks. Without so much as citing one legal authority upon which to define candidate Obama's qualifications, and while relying on other documentation that has now proven to be fraudulent, Defendants claim the Plaintiff's concerns, and therefore the citizens concerns, are frivolous. Plaintiff, who seeks only to assure that the Party's candidate for the president meets the qualifications for the office, soundly rejects defendant's arguments. If the Court finds that there are other indispensable parties that

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

are required and moves to dismiss this case, the case should be dismissed without prejudice to provide Plaintiff with every fair opportunity to bring this challenge forward.

_____

----.".,~~~'-. ~_.~_.~

dated this 5th day of March 2012

Kenneth L Allen 10055 E Gray Hawk Dr Tucson Arizona 85730

..

16

1

Certificate of Service Plaintiff hereby states that the defendants Mail and electronic mail to the defendants: Paul F. Eckstein attorney for the Democratic Party, a copy to the County Attorney Daniel Jurkowisky, Esq., County Attorney, US Attorneys Office/civil division process have been served by personal service US

2 3
4

5 6
7

clerk, 405 W Congress Street, Tucson Arizona 85701.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Kenneth L Allen; proper person

19
20 21 22 23 24

..

25
26 27 28

17

Kenneth Allen 10055 E. Gray Hawk Dr. Tucson, AZ 85730 (520) 514-9704

, , ,'" ' ClERK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARTZO'1J7\ IN AND FOR THE COUNtY OF PIMA

PATRlCfA A NOLAND

.::.UPERIOR COIj , ' ~T

''
.~

IIIIW 1IIIJ~'m!ll~J!l~111111111
Kenneth Allen Plaintiff, Case Number:

L- ;) tJ/;L ItJ'/&

vs.:
Arizona Democratic Party on Behalf ofBarack Obama; Brad R. Nelson; et al Defendant.

AFFIDAVIT

OF SERVICE

Received by Priority One Process Servers, (LC. to be served on United States Attorney's #40Si· Tucson, AZ 85701. iIIf' I, Calvin E. Mcintire, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 29th day of February,

Office, 405 W. Congress

St.,

2012 at 9:50 am, I:

personally served an AUTHORIZED entity by delivering a true copy of the Summons 1 thru 45 inclusive; Ballot Challanqe Pursuant to A.R.S. 16-351 (b) and Article II Section I Clause 5 of the United States Constitution and Rule 8; , Attachment with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me. to: Cassandra Cunningham as Receptionist at the address of: 405 W. Congress St., #408, Tucson, AZ 85701, who stated they are authorized to accept service for United States Attorney's Office, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes. Description Glasses: Y of Person Served: Age: 35, Sex: F, Race/Skin Color: White, Height: 5'11 ", Weight: 160, Hair: Brown,

I certify that I am over the age of 21, have no interest in the above action. and am a Certified Process Server, in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which t,he process was served.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me on the 29th day of February, 2012 by the affiant who is personally known to ... me. Priority One Process 545ifE. 5th Street Tucson, AZ 85711 (520¥618-4352 Servers, LLC.

Our Job Serial Number: PRT-201.2005383

011 Database

Services,

Inc. ~ Process Server-s Toolbox

V6.5f

Kenneth Allen 10055 E. Gray Hawk Dr. Tucson, AZ 85730 (520) 514-9704

co
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT~OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA

'.

MAR 2 -2m2
PATRICIAA NOLAND SUPERIORCOURT

111111111111111111111 1111111111111111
PRT2012005382 Ke.nneth Allen .p Ia intiff, vs. Arizona Democratic Party on Behalf of Barack Obama; Brad R. Nelson; et al Defendant.

~,

." Case Number:

c. )_O/2

/04 &

AFFIDAVIT

OF SERVICE

It"

Received by Priority One Process Servers, LLC. to be served on Pima County Recorder's AZ 85701. -::" I, Calvin E. Mcintire, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 29th day of February,

Office,115

N. Church,

Tucson, ~"

2012 at 9:35 am, I:

personally served an AUTHORIZED entity by delivering a true copy of the Summons 1 thru 45 inclusive; Ballot Challange Pursuant to A.R.S. 16·351 (b) and Article II Section I Clause 5 of the United States Constitution and Rule 8; Attachment with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: Mildred Curran as Administrative Specialist at the address of: 115 N. Church, Tucson, AZ 85701, who stated they are authorized to accept service for Pima County Recorder's Office, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes. . Description Glasses: Y of Person Served: Age: 50, Sex: F, Race/Skin Color: Hispanic,

-

.'

Height: 57", Weight

140, Hair: Brown,

I certify that I am over the age of 21, have-no interestln the above action. and am a Certified Process Server,in standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. .

good

Subscribed and Sworn to before me on the 29th day of February, 2012 by the affiant who is personally known to .. me.
'ii

Calvin E. Mcintire #486 Priority One Process 5450 E. 5th Street Tucson, AZ 85711 (520) 618-4352 Servers, LLC.

Our Job Serial Number: PRT-2012005382

-2D11 Database

Services,

lnc. - Process Server's

Toolbox

V6.5f

Kenneth Allen 10055 E. Gray Hawk Dr. Tucson, AZ 85730 (520) 514-9704 ..._ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA

MAR 2 -2DI:..

,

E'ATRICIAA NOLAND ,4,h:, CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT f,1;Wii~J:;

1111111111111111111111111111111111111
PRT2012005051 Kenneth Allen Plaintiff, vs. Arizona Democratic Party on behalf of Barack Obama; Brad R. Nelson; et al. Defendant. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Case Number: C 20121046

Received by Priority One Process Servers, LLC. to be served on Arizona 2910 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012.

Democratic

Party on behalf of Barak Obama,

I, Suzette A. Joralmon, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 24th day of February, 2012 at 3:25 pm, I:
personally served an AUTHORIZED entity by delivering a true copy of the Summons for First Amended Complaint Pursuant to ARS 16-351 Election challenge; Motion for Leave to Amend Ballot Challenge and Complaint Pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure 15 (2); First Amended Complaint ARS 16-351 (b) and Article II Section I Clause 5 and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Brief in Support (2); Brief in Support of First Amended Complaint ARS 16-351(b) and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Breif in Support (2); Initial Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 26; Attachments with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: Joaquin Rios as Research Director at the address of: 2910 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012, who stated they are authorized to accept service for Arizona Democratic Party, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes, Description Glasses: Y of Person Served: Age: 33, Sex: M, Race/Skin Color: White, Height: 5'6", Weight: 180, Hair: Brown,

I certify that I am over the age of 21, have no interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server, in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served .

Subscribed and Sworn to before me on the 25th day of February, 2012 by the affiant who is personally known to me.

..
»:"

Suzette A. JOral.1];PIi'" .. 7993 / Priority One Process 5450 E. 5th Street Tucson, AZ 85711 (520) 618-4352 Servers, LLC.

CrlBtlne M ZinnI Not~rvPublic
PIma County, Arizona

Our Job Serial Number: PRT-2012005051

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful