This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Collette v. Obama, et al. Case Number: 512012CA 2041WS Hearing Date: July 10, 2012 Time: 3:30 pm Room: J2
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss I, Jerry Collette, plaintiff, oppose the motions to dismiss (“motions”) my first amended complaint (“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 Executive Committee of the Florida Democratic Party (“Committee”), as follows: Preface This court is, already, at a major juncture in this important constitutional matter and faces two antipodal choices. It could choose to, either: ● Go down in obscurity with the 100+ other courts who have, in one way or another, swept under the rug the key issues, which this and similar cases have presented, and take any one 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; and ○ Allow the case to proceed on the merits; ● Later, as the case progresses: ○ Order defendant Obama to make his original government and hospital birth records 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 pertains to the eligibility to hold the office of president; and ● Ultimately, make a determination on defendant Obama’s eligibility, based upon: ○ The facts and the law; rather than ○ Political expediency.
Introduction 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 complete sentences.
Defendants’ Truth and Candor Was Very Short Lived 2. By the third sentence1 of their preliminary statements, defendants had already begun to: a. Throw candor aside; b. Blatantly mischaracterize reality; and c. Flim-flam this court. History in Other Courts of the Issues Presented 3. 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, one that 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) defendant Obama’s original government or hospital birth documents, which would easily resolve, once and for all, the question of his birthplace; or Analyzed the 400+ years of law which, as I and others who have brought similar 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 the merits. As important as they are, the issues involved are political hot potatoes, and until now, courts have been reluctant to explore them fully, if at all.
Defendants Spuriously Mischaracterized My Assertions As Baseless 10. Defendants closed the third sentence2 of their preliminary statements by telling this court that my assertions questioning the eligibility of defendant Obama are “baseless,” then ended their preliminary statements with that same idea, only slightly rephrased.3
Id. 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
11. Even if this court should ultimately rule against me on the merits, nonetheless, there exist ample bases for my assertions, of which, I believe, defendants and their attorneys are, and at all relevant times were, well aware. For example: Evidence Suggesting That Defendant Obama Was Born in Kenya a. In 1991, defendant Obama’s literary agents produced and distributed a promotional booklet4 which stated that defendant Obama was "born in Kenya." b. Twelve years later, in promoting the publication of defendant Obama’s best selling book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, his agents were still stating5 that defendant Obama was “born in Kenya.” c. Defendant Obama’s agent’s website,6 dystel.com, listed defendant Obama’s birthplace as “Kenya” until as recently as 2007, the same year he launched his presidential campaign. d. Apparently, somebody either lied about defendant Obama’s birthplace being: i. ii. e. Was it: i. ii. Defendant Obama, himself, who lied about his birthplace; and/or Others, whom defendant Obama allowed, without correcting them, to lie about it? Kenya, for at least sixteen years prior to 2007, or Hawaii, since 2007.
f. Until this is cleared up, there is an obvious basis to question defendant Obama’s eligibility.
A grayscale copy of the relevant portion of that booklet, as retrieved from breitbart.com, is accompanying, labeled as “Exhibit 1.” 5 A grayscale screenshot of the relevant portion of an archived web page from 2003 is accompanying, labeled as “Exhibit 2.” 6 A grayscale screenshot of the relevant portion of an archived web page from 2007 is accompanying, labeled as “Exhibit 3.”
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 4 of 24
g. Where is defendant Obama’s real birthplace? Is it Kenya, Hawaii, or, even, someplace else?7 h. As I have alleged in paragraph 33 of my complaint, “Defendant Obama has repeatedly promised that he would have ‘the most transparent administration in U.S. history.’” i. Yet, as I have alleged in paragraph 36 of my complaint, to this date, “no original governmental or hospital documentary or microfiche records of the alleged birth, in Hawaii, of defendant Obama, which would easily resolve the issue of defendant Obama’s birthplace, have yet been made public.” j. Until defendant Obama’s original government and hospital birth documents are examined by a competent witness acceptable to plaintiff, there is an obvious basis to question his eligibility.
Evidence Suggesting That Defendant Obama’s Birth Certificate Is a Forgery k. On March 1, 2012, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, released a report8 of an official investigation into the PDF document purporting to be a genuine copy of defendant Obama’s long-form birth certificate, stating, e.g.: i. "The PDF birth certificate document released by the White House … is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image.” Id at page 1.9 “The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form (on green basketweave safety paper) and [was] retrieved from Hawaii—but this is not possible.” Id. “…this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White House—it was digitally created and manufactured [emphasis in original].” Id.
Who really knows? A true and correct copy of which is posted at: http://personal.crocodoc.com/CSoMq3L. 9 Page 5 of the above cited investigation report PDF file.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 5 of 24
“Inconsistencies within text characters: ... which is impossible in a legitimate document.” Id. “This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama's PDF document.” Id. “... Indicate that components were pasted into the file, rotated, and resized.” Id. “... another inconsistency that could NOT [emphasis in original] happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White House—but this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured file.” Id at page 4.10 “A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies.” Id. “... a strong indicator that the document was manipulated.” Id. “The layers in Obama's PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation.” Id at page 5.11 “... clear indications of image manipulation. This cannot happen in a normal document.” Id at page 6.12 “This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation.” Id. “The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understanding of image manipulation.” Id at page 7.13 “This is a clear and important indication of image manipulation ....“ Id.
v. vi. vii.
viii. ix. x.
Page 8 of the above cited investigation report PDF file. Page 9 of the above cited investigation report PDF file. 12 Page 10 of the above cited investigation report PDF file. 13 Page 11 of the above cited investigation report PDF file.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 6 of 24
“This clean separation can only be accomplished through image manipulation of document elements.” Id. “... the safety paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on basketweave safety paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background. This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an official document.” Id at page 9.14 “Any official document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo.” Id at page 10.15 “... every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactured document.” Id. “... the AP [Associated Press] version of the long form certificate contains a different set of problems ….” Id. “... all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur if the source document presented to the AP had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation.” Id. “... there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computer generated forgery.” Sheriff’s press release accompanying the investigation report, at page 1.16
l. If a genuine version of his long-form Hawaii birth certificate existed, why would defendant Obama even have in his possession, much less post online, a forgery of it? m. This question alone gives an obvious basis to question defendant Obama’s eligibility.
Page 13 of the above cited investigation report PDF file. Page 14 of the above cited investigation report PDF file. 16 Page 1 of the above cited investigation report PDF file.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 7 of 24
Wong Kim Ark Does Not Resolve the Issue of Citizenship Applicable to Eligibility for the Office of President n. As I have pointed out above,17 over 400 years of law exists which shows that the holding in Wong Kim Ark does not apply to natural born citizenship as it pertains to presidential eligibility.
A Federal Judge Has Recently Ruled That There Is Clearly a Dispute as to the Issues Presented Here o. In Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party (W.D. Tenn., Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, April 13, 2012),18 the federal district court, found: i. “[The] issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’” Id at 7. “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor [v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)].” Liberty Legal Foundation Order at 7-8.
12. To summarize, defendants have tried to convince this court that my allegations questioning defendant Obama’s eligibility are “baseless” in spite of, among other things: a. Defendant Obama and/or his agents promoted his birthplace as Kenya, from at least 1991 through 2007; b. Defendant Obama still refuses to authorize the necessary access to his alleged original Hawaii government and hospital birth documents, which could easily resolve the issue of his birthplace, once and for all;19 c. A sheriff’s detailed investigation recently found probable cause to believe that the publicly posted version of defendant Obama’s long-form Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery; and
… and developed more fully in paragraphs 30 through 35, below, ... A true and correct copy of which is posted at: http://personal.crocodoc.com/3fl0IyN. 19 However, such a resolution may show that he was not, as he now claims, born in Hawaii, which would explain his long standing resistance to having those documents made public.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 8 of 24
d. A federal judge recently found that there is a substantial dispute on the question of defendant Obama’s eligibility as well as on the definition of natural born citizen, as it applies to the qualifications for the office of presidency — both key issues in this case.
Another Defense Mischaracterization of My Assertions as Baseless 13. In opening paragraph 2 of their motions, defendants repeated the term, “baseless,” to mischaracterize my assertions questioning the eligibility of defendant Obama. 14. Between their preliminary statements and their motions, each of defendants’ motions used the term “baseless” (or a form thereof) not just once, but three times, to mischaracterize the assertions in my complaint. 15. Accordingly, I believe that defendants’ use of this term was not just a mistaken, offhanded comment, but deliberate and intentional. Defense Fallaciously Contended That the Citizenship Issue Is “Long Settled” 16. In paragraph 2 of their preliminary statements,20 defendants went on to tell this court that the question of defendant Obama’s citizenship “has long been settled.” 17. As I have laid out above, to this day this issue remains quite unsettled, a reality of which, I believe, defendants and their attorneys are, and, at all relevant times, have been, well aware. 18. Public polls repeatedly show doubt as to defendant Obama’s eligibility. For example, a PPP poll,21 done in August 2011,22 showed that ⅔ of South Carolina Republicans23 either did not believe that, or were unsure as to whether or not, defendant Obama was born in the United States. 19. Furthermore, there are about ten other cases pending in various parts of the country questioning the citizenship of defendant Obama, another fact of which, I believe, defendants and their attorneys are, and, at all relevant times, have been, well aware. 20. Obviously, the issue of defendant Obama’s citizenship, particularly as it applies to presidential eligibility, is, to this day, in significant active dispute, and is clearly not, as
Sentence 1 thereof of defendant Obama’s, and sentence 2 thereof of defendant Committee’s. The results are posted at http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PPP_Release_SC_08301023.pdf, at page 4. 22 Four months after the release of defendant Obama's alleged long form birth certificate on the Internet. 23 The poll was taken in conjunction with a poll on the South Carolina Republican presidential primary.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 9 of 24
defendants told this court, “long settled,” notwithstanding, perhaps, a deep desire by defendants that it were so.
How Improper Are Defendants’ Misstatements? 21. Just how wrongful, in fact, are defendants’ and their attorneys’ fallacious contentions of baselessness, contrived mischaracterizations of reality, and lack of candor? Are they: a. Attempted fraud upon the court; b. Violations of RPC Rules 4-3.1 and 4-3.3; c. Reprehensible, to the level of being deplorable, despicable, and/or detestable; d. Shameful, in the essence of disgraceful, dishonorable, and/or disreputable; e. Lying, by being deceitful, deceptive, and/or dishonest; and/or f. Merely misleading, no more than devious, disingenuous, and/or duplicitous? 22. However we label these intentional misstatements of defendants, they transgress any applicable standard of acceptable advocacy, and should not be tolerated in this court, even on behalf of the President of the United States.24 Response to Defendants’ Motions Defendants Have Answered and Denied the Key Allegations of My Complaint 23. While embedded within, and characterized as parts of their motions to dismiss and the preliminary statements thereto, defendants’ preliminary statements, beginning with sentence 3 thereof,25 and paragraph 1 of their motions, clearly contain denials of the two most significant allegations of my complaint. 24. The court should treat those denials as what they really are: answers to my complaint.
They should not be tolerated even if defendants and their attorneys actually believe that defendant Obama meets the constitutional qualifications of the office. 25 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 10 of 24
My Complaint Pleads Justiciable Causes of Action 25. In the above mentioned portions of their preliminary statements and motions, defendants said, in essence: “We deny plaintiff’s allegations. Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a cause of action.” 26. Denials of allegations, even such denials embedded within, and/or characterized as part(s) of, motions to dismiss, and/or preliminary statements thereto, do not cause a complaint to fail to state a cause of action. 27. A complaint which fails to state a cause of action fails to do so even if all of the allegations therein are true. 28. Denials of any of a complaint’s allegations are completely irrelevant to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. 29. That defendants felt it necessary to deny the key allegations of my complaint, as the primary bases of their motions, before even making the actual motions themselves, speaks volumes to the inherent weakness of their motions. In response to paragraph 1 of defendants’ motions: Wong Kim Ark Did Not Settle Natural Born Citizenship as It Applies to Presidential Eligibility 30. In paragraph 1 their motions, defendants cited U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). 31. While, admittedly, Wong Kim Ark is strong authority in defendants’ favor on the subject of whether or not defendant Obama is a natural born citizen, it is not sufficiently unequivocal to be dispositive of this entire issue, as it pertains to presidential eligibility, on motions to dismiss. 32. Applying the defendants’ reasoning, an anchor baby, or perhaps even a child born of a hostile invader, would be eligible to be president of the United States. This was never the intent of the framers of the federal constitution, nor was it the intent of the 14th Amendment to amend Article II so that such a result would be possible.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 11 of 24
33. Once a motion for summary judgment on this issue is properly before this court,26 I intend to present 400+ years of law showing that the decision in Wong Kim Ark does not apply to natural born citizenship as it pertains to presidential eligibility. 34. This is a significant constitutional issue that should be fully analyzed by courts, perhaps even by the U.S. Supreme Court. The most expeditious way for that to happen would be for this court to ultimately rule in my favor on the foreign paternity issue so that defendants may then, promptly, appeal to a higher court. 35. A casual dismissal now, without deeper analysis of this important constitutional issue, would not be in the best public interest.
The Ankeny Case Is of Little or No Value 36. In paragraph 1 of their motions, defendants also cited a 2010 Indiana case, Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E. 2d 678 (Ind.Ct. App. 2010), which: a. Not only has no precedential value in this court, but b. Took the politically expedient route of simply relying on the dicta of Wong Kim Ark, and c. Clearly, failed to delve into the 400+ years of law on the issue of natural born citizenship, as it applies to presidential eligibility.
In response to paragraph 2 of defendants’ motions: Defendants’ Do Not Have an Unqualified Right as to Who They Place onto Florida Ballots at Taxpayer Expense 37. I hereby stipulate that defendants and their party are free to nominate whomever they wish, including, but not limited to, Humpty Dumpty, as their “standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preferences.” That is not the nature of my complaint. 38. My complaint is about defendants’ right to effect the placement, onto Florida ballots,27 at taxpayer expense, of a candidate constitutionally ineligible to hold the office sought.
If the court denies defendants’ motions to dismiss, one of the first things I will then do will be to coordinate, with counsel for the defense, the timing of a summary judgment hearing on this issue. 27 Preprinted or counted as a write-in candidate.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 12 of 24
39. Following defendants’ logic: a. Defendant Committee could actually affect the placement Humpty Dumpty onto the Florida ballot; and b. Any group calling itself a political party would have the unqualified right to place any name on the state ballot; and, c. The state would be powerless to prevent either result. This would be absurd. 40. The U.S. Supreme Court held, in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 US 428, 433 (1992): Common sense, as well as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government must play an active role in structuring elections; "as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." [Citation omitted.] See, also, Reform Party of Florida v. Black, 885 So. 2d 303 (Fla, 2004). 41. The U.S. Supreme Court also held, in one of the two cases cited by defendants on this issue, New York Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 128 S. Ct. 791, 797-798, 552 U.S. 196 (2008): [A political party’s] rights are circumscribed, however when the State gives the party a role in the election process—as [the state] has done here by giving certain [political] parties the right to have their candidates appear with party endorsement on the general-election ballot. 42. Accordingly, being that defendant Committee is given significant privilege and power with respect to the taxpayer funded ballot process, it is not unreasonable for the state to restrict defendants from placing, onto state ballots, candidates who do not meet the eligibility requirements of the office sought.
In response to paragraph 3 of defendants’ motions: My Complaint Pleads Real and Justiciable Controversies 43. The portions of paragraph 3 of defendants’ motions which allege that there is no justiciable controversy is contradicted by their denials, in their preliminary statements,
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 13 of 24
beginning with sentence 3 thereof,28 and in paragraph 1 of their motions,29 of the material allegations of my complaint. 44. In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 US 270, 273 (1941), the court discussed the kind of controversy for which a declaratory judgment was appropriate, stating: The difference between an abstract question and a "controversy" contemplated by the Declaratory Judgment Act is necessarily one of degree, and it would be difficult, if it would be possible, to fashion a precise test for determining in every case whether there is such a controversy. Basically, the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. [Citation omitted.] See, also, Coalition for Adequacy v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla, 1996). 45. I am claiming the right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet the constitutional requirement for the office, while defendants are denying that I have such a right. Defendants are claiming the right to put anybody they want, without qualification, onto the Florida ballot; while I am denying that they have such an unqualified right. This, by definition, is a controversy, ripe for declaratory judgment. 46. In response to the portions of paragraph 3 of defendants’ motions which allege that I am seeking the judgment of this court merely to satisfy curiosity or for political purposes: a. Defendants have submitted no facts to substantiate such naked allegations; and b. I hereby swear that I have no such motives but, instead, am here before this court to assert and defend my implied constitutional right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet the qualifications for the office.
Sentence 3 of paragraph 1 of defendant Obama’s preliminary statement, and sentence 1 of paragraph 2 of defendant Committee’s preliminary statement. 29 As I have pointed out in paragraphs 23 and 24, above.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 14 of 24
In response to paragraph 4 of defendants’ motions: This Case Belongs in Circuit Court 47. Most of paragraph 4 of defendants’ motions is contradicted by the holding in Davis v. Pinellas County Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc., 743 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1998), in which the court held that no specific dollar amount is required to invoke the jurisdiction of a circuit court when asking for declaratory judgment. 48. Defendants are raising a blatant red herring on the issue of a specific dollar amount requirement for this case to be in a circuit court. Even if defendants were correct on this issue, it would not be grounds for dismissal — the case would simply be transferred to county court, which defendants obviously do not want. 49. The matters presented in this case are significant and belong before a circuit court — not a county court. With respect to my request for a remedy of an award of monetary damages: I Am Entitled to Prove Money Damages 50. Upon proof thereof, monetary damages are routinely awarded in tort cases. My case is tort based. 51. The Florida Supreme Court held, in Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080, 1087 (1987): It is uncontroverted that there currently exists a right to sue on and recover noneconomic damages of any amount ... 52. I hereby reserve my right to prove monetary damages. 53. Dismissal of this remedy, at this stage of the case, is way premature.
In response to paragraph 5 of defendants’ motions: My Causes of Action Are Actionable Before This Court 54. While embedded within their motions to dismiss and characterized as parts thereof, this paragraph contains a clear admission of paragraph 6130 of my complaint and is, in essence, an answer to that portion of my complaint.
Which states, “No specific causes of action or remedies exist for violations of the right at issue.”
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 15 of 24
55. Defendants have neither denied nor negated the allegations in paragraph 6231 of my complaint. 56. Accordingly, my first cause of action32 can still proceed. 57. Furthermore, there is no denying that my second cause of action33 is actionable before this court.
My Right to Bring this Action Is Constitutionally Guaranteed 58. Fla. Const. art. I, § 21 states, in relevant part: “The courts shall be open to every person [emphasis added] for redress of any injury [emphasis added] …” 59. I, Jerry Collette, hereby swear that: a. I, personally, am, currently, and, at all relevant times to this matter have been, without exception, within the class of “every person;” and b. All of the injuries for which I seek redress from this court, in this matter, are, currently, and, at all relevant times to this matter have been, without exception, within the category of “any injury.” 60. Accordingly, this court is open to me for redress in this matter, of all of the injuries, of all of the rights, duties, and obligations, alleged in all of my causes of action.
In response to paragraphs 6 through 12 of defendants’ motions: All Indispensable Parties are Named 61. If, as requested in my complaint, the named defendants are enjoined from “doing any action which would support … [defendant Obama being on Florida ballots],” none of
Which states, “Accordingly, the existence of remedies for the violations is implied from the importance of the right violated.” 32 Violation of rights under the U.S. Constitution. 33 Negligence per se.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 16 of 24
the other persons alleged by defendants as “indispensable parties” will need to be so enjoined. The Governor Nominates Democratic Party Presidential Electors Only According to Defendant Committee’s Recommendations 62. Defendants state,34 correctly, that the Governor nominates35 “only” the candidates for presidential electors for the defendants’ party who are “recommended” by defendant Committee.
The Secretary of State Places the Name of the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate onto the Ballot Only After the Governor Certifies Defendant Committee’s List of Recommended Electors 63. Defendants also state,36 correctly, that, after the Governor certifies the list of electors for a political party, the Secretary of State includes,37 on Florida ballots, the names of that party’s actual candidates for President and Vice President for whom the party’s presidential electors will vote, if elected. This is clearly a ministerial function. 64. Therefore, if defendants are enjoined, as requested in my complaint, from “doing any action which would support … [defendant Obama being on Florida ballots]:” a. Defendant Committee would, as a consequence, be enjoined38 from recommending, to the Governor, any presidential electors committed to vote for defendant Obama;
No Injunction is Needed Against the Governor b. Accordingly, the Governor, even though not so enjoined, would, nonetheless, not nominate any presidential electors committed to vote for defendant Obama; and
No Injunction is Needed Against the Secretary of State
In paragraphs 9 and 10 of their motions. This is simply a ministerial function. 36 In paragraph 11 of their motions. 37 This is simply a ministerial function. 38 Such an injunction could reasonably be expected to be obeyed.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 17 of 24
c. Thus, the Secretary of State, even though not so enjoined, would not include the name of defendant Obama on Florida ballots.
Neither the Governor nor the Secretary of State Have an Adverse Interest to Mine 65. To be an indispensable party, the first requirement, before any others is to have an interest in the case. E.g., Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 US 102, 124 (1968). 66. As defendants have described, the roles of the Governor and the Secretary of State, with respect to nominating defendant Committee’s electors and placing the name of defendant Committee’s candidate are clearly ministerial in nature. 67. Therefore, neither the Governor nor the Secretary of State have any interests in this case that are adverse to mine. 68. Hence, as set forth above, neither the Governor nor the Secretary of State are, as alleged by defendants, “indispensable parties to this action.” 69. Nonetheless, defendants are free to invite any persons, including, but not limited to, those they alleged as “indispensable parties,” who have or claim any interests in this case, adverse to mine, to join and defend this suit. I would not object.
In response to paragraphs 13 through 19 of defendants’ motions: Pasco County is a Proper Venue 70. Among all of defendants’ venue protestations, strikingly absent is any applicable denial or negation to my venue allegation.39 71. The injury for which I am seeking relief was first suffered, by me, in Pasco County. See, e.g., McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC v. B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So.3d 504, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 72. Accordingly, as I have alleged in my complaint,40 “Pasco County is a proper venue for this case.”
Paragraph 9 of my complaint. In sentence 2 of paragraph 9.
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 18 of 24
Conclusion Defendants have not met the standard to have this case dismissed. The motions should be denied, forthwith. My case should be allowed to proceed, on its merits, in this county, and in this court.
Respectfully Submitted June 18, 2012
Jerry Collette Plaintiff Pro Se PO Box 3664 Holiday FL 34692 727-457-0300
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 19 of 24
Verification I, Jerry Collette, plaintiff in this matter, under the penalty of perjury, hereby swear that: 1. The facts stated in the above document are true of my own knowledge, except for those stated based upon knowledge and/or belief, and those, I believe to be true and founded upon reasonable bases; 2. The accompanying exhibits are true and genuine grayscale screenshots of the relevant portions of the originals which they replicate; and 3. The documents linked in the above document are true and correct copies of originals found elsewhere on the Internet, then copied and stored on crododoc.com for ease of access. June 18, 2012
Jerry Collette Plaintiff Pro Se
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PASCO Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of June, 2012, by Jerry Collette who has produced, as identification, a valid Florida drivers license. [Notary signature, name, stamp, seal, etc. below]
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 20 of 24
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 21 of 24
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 22 of 24
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 23 of 24
Proof of Service I certify that copies of the: Plaintiffs' Verified Opposition to Motions to Dismissal have been furnished to defendants by email delivery to: Mark Herron, counsel for defendants on June 18, 2012.
Jerry Collette, Plaintiff Pro Se
Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss - Page 24 of 24
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?