MOTION to DISMISS DEFENDANTS NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Defendant, Barack Hussein Obama, will come before the Court, make the following motion, and tender the attached order on Monday September 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM or as soon thereafter can be heard by this Court on its regular motion hour. MOTION Comes now the Defendant, Barack Hussein Obama, and moves the Court to dismiss this action based on grounds related to subject matter jurisdiction. Cr 12.02(a). Plaintiff’s PLAINTIFF


complaint, even if valid, presents a Federal question and/or is preempted by Federal Law. ARGUMENT Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be President of the United States. The Office of President is created by the United States Constitution, Article II. The U.S. Code has entire chapter 3 USC et seq. The

dedicated to the Office of President.

Page 1 of 4

questions of vacancy of said office, those entitled to hold it, secession of terms, election of electors are addressed in Constitutional Amendments XII and XX. In short, there is an

abundance of Federal Law on the highest Federal Office. Defendant Obama asserts that Federal law occupies the entire field of law related to the Presidency. The doctrine of federal preemption is derived from the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, (1819). A state law that

conflicts with federal law is without effect. The historic police powers of the state are not preempted in the absence of "the clear and manifest purpose of Congress" to do so. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, (1947). The United States Supreme Court has stated that it is reluctant to interpret a federal statute in such a way as to find preemption of subjects traditionally governed by state law. CSX Transportation v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). Determination of whether a federal statute preempts a state cause of action depends on the purpose of Congress in enacting the federal statute. Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, (1978). The congressional purpose to preempt a state remedy may be determined in either of two ways. The first is whether the preemption is found in the express language of the statute,

Page 2 of 4

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, (1992). The second is to find preemption implied from the structure and purpose of the statute. Implied preemption occurs when the state law actually conflicts with federal law or where the federal law so thoroughly occupies the legislative field that it may be reasonably inferred that Congress left no room for the state to supplement it. To the extent Kentucky law purports to assume any jurisdiction over the Presidency, who may seek said office, qualifications thereof, said law would be preempted. FEDERAL QUESTION Jurisdiction, if proper in any court (which Defendant does not so concede), is proper in Federal Court as this matter involves a Federal Question. 28 USC 1331- Federal Question The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. (emphasis added) As Plaintiff’s claims directly rise out of the laws (3 USC et seq) and (Federal) Constitution (Article II, Amendment XII, and Amendment XX) they necessarily present a Federal Question. The only claims which arise allegedly under the law of the Commonwealth are those related to Obama’s bona fide’s (KRS 118.176). Even within those allegations related to the bona

Page 3 of 4

fide’s, they turn on (Federal) Constitutional interpretation. Therefore, the matter is properly brought, if anywhere, in a US District Court. CONCLUSION There are many reasons for this Court to decline to hear this matter. jurisdiction. One of the most basic is want of subject matter The questions presented are based in Federal law.

Federal law on the subject of this suit so fills the field of law as to leave no room for State action. is proper and necessary. CERTIFICATE Counsel certifies this pleading was mailed this 7th day of September 2012 to: Lynn S. Zellen 700 Capital Avenue Suite 152 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 L. Todd House 1513 Rosewood Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40204 _______________________________ J. Scott Wantland Wantland Law, PLLC Post Office Box 515 319 South Buckman Street Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165 502-957-0000 Jennifer Moore One Riverfront Plaza 401 W Main St Suite 1810 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dismissal under Cr 12

Page 4 of 4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful