You are on page 1of 5

II

IS

Fr

ien

D81169194001.1

ds

of T

he F

og Bo w. co m
2

itis

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Barack Hussein Obama, II Aka Barack Hussein Obama, Aka Bmack H. Obama Objecticn of: Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. andl Dale A. Laudenslager

MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TESTIMONY VIA "SKYPE"

Objectors have moved for an order permitting testimony via SKYPE or "similar

computer conferencing method" at the hearing in this matter scheduled for March 1,2012. ObjectOls assert that their "expert witness" - whose identity and location objectors fail to

disclose - "has a prior commitment requiring his presence in the state of Az." Motion, 12. Objectors suggest that Candidate or unspecified "other participants" may "require SKYPE or

Objectors' Motion is meritless and should be denied for several reasons: 1. As discussed in detail in the Motion to Strike and Dismiss filed simultaneously

with this Memorandum, Objectors' Petition is utterly devoid of merit. Objectors lack standing to

Fr

ien

ds
courtroom.
D81169193201 ;.1

challenge President Obama's nomination petition. Moreover, this Court does not have

jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of a candidate's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution for the office of President of the United States. Objectors' filing is legally meritless and should

be stricken and dismissed. There is no need for an evidentiary hearing at all, much less one

conducted through the remote "testimony" of unspecified persons who are not present in the

of T

similar computer conferencing method in order to participate." Motion, 13.

he F

og Bo w. co m
No.: 85 M.D. 2012

3.

it is

In

np1~"n,n

he F

""Hun"",

to

of T

to

to trallstclrm

ds

Fr

ien

D81/69193206.1

og Bo w. co m
IS

to

to to

to

to not

..... "'.u'"'....

are

to

Fr ds
12

OB1I69193206.1

ien of T he F og Bo w. co m

on

Fr

ien

ds

of T

D81/69193206.1

he F
4

og Bo w. co m
II..'uuc;:'I;;U

to