Posted on | September 22, 2009 | 5 Comments
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
i
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7036
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail:
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action:
§
Barack Hussein Obama, §
SACV09-00082-DOC
Michelle L.R. Obama, Hilary Rodham §
Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. § PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY
Gates, Secretary of Defense, § RESPONSE TO DOC. #56
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
President of the Senate, § DISMISS (with reservation of
Defendants. § right to Amend Complaint)
PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 9-04-09
MOTION TO DISMISS
(with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday October 2, 2009)
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 1 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (PG 1)
POLITICAL RELATIVITY VS. CONSTITUTIONAL ABOSOLUTES (PG 1, l 10)
QUO WARRANTO (PG 3, L 19)
PLAINTIFF’S PRE-LITIGATION INQUIRIES (PG 4, L26)
CLASSES OF PLAINTIFFS: OATH TAKERS AND CANDIDATES (PG 9, L 11)
WHAT IF THE POLITICAL MAJORITY CHOOSES SLAVERY? (PG 13, L 20)
STANDING-POLITICAL QUESTION-REDRESSABILITY: FLAST V COHEN (PG 16,
L 17)
CONSTITUTION AS IMMUTABLE FRAME (PG 21, L 12)
CONCLUSION (PG 25, L 14)
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 2 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
United States v. Carolene Products Co
304 U.S. 144, Footnote 4 page #17
Wisconsin v. Yoder
406 U.S. 205 (1972) page #17
Flast v. Cohen
392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968) pages #19,20,25
United States v. Sprague,
282 U.S. 716, 731, 51 S.Ct. 220, 75 L.Ed. 640 (1931) page #23
Gibbons v. Ogden,
22 U.S. 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 188, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824) page #23
D.C. v. Heller
128 S.Ct. 2783, 2788; 171 L.Ed.2d 637, 648 (2008) page #23
D.C. v. Heller, supra,
128 S.Ct. at 2790-1; 171 L.Ed.2d at 650 (2008) page #25
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 [1990] page #25
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 3 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, to be supplemented by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint on or before October 2, 2009
Come now the Plaintiffs
Defendants’ September 4, 2009, Document 56 Motion to Dismiss (with
reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint on or before Friday, October 2, 2009).
POLITICAL RELATIVITY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL ABSOLUTES:
IS THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE VIABLE AS A MEANS TO EVADE
COMPLIANCE WITH UNVARIABLE STANDARDS?
Fundamentally, this case comes down to a single bifurcated question
question: (1A) does the constitution mean what it says when it lays down
absolute parameters, such as the age and citizenship qualifications to be
President, and (1B) to whom does the investigation and enforcement of this
constitutional provision: to the Congress, the People, or can the President get by
merely asserting his qualifications without presenting evidence which would be
competent as Summary Judgment (admissible) evidence under Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
The Plaintiffs have brought their complaint as a matter of first impression
to ask this Court to determine, find, hold, and rule that the investigation and
enforcement of this right belongs to
insular minority of the people, even if this group lacks majoritarian political
power. Plaintiffs respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ask this
Court to rule, pursuant to the First and Ninth Amendments that they may sue to
enforce constitutional absolutes, such as the constitutional requirements for
President of the United States. Plaintiffs assert an inalienable, reserved right to
sue for Constitutional conformity in this case even though they concede that the
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 4 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
2
Defendants have shown that primary, first line actions
been taken by members of Congress or the Electoral College, pursuant to the
Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments for instance.
Document 56, Filed 09/04/2009, Page 2o of 32: Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss at 13, ll. 114.
Of course, what Congress must do in the case of obvious electoral
deadlocks or recognized and admitted problems with qualification for office is
not at all the point raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence. Plaintiffs’
complaint and evidence allege and confirm that the Presidency in 2008 was
taken by fraud, and not even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in
the traditional common law sense of a material misrepresentation of an
important fact upon which Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to
their detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional government.
The Constitution’s textual commitment of this responsibility is a
responsibility that Congress has embraced. Both the House and the
Sentate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide
questions relating to Presidential elections.
Idem
: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517.
Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a
question, Defendants’ position appears to be that this very inaction or
acquiescence by Congress creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently,
Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and
complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party
sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to
Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people
that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office.
Motion to Dismiss at 1314.
The Defendants’ position in this regard is simply
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 5 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
3
a preposterous “cop out”. Defendants in effect ask this Court to conclude, find,
hold, and rule that “willful disregard of the letter of the law is proof of
compliance with that law.” Plaintiffs submit and contend, by contrast, that
Congress’ neglect and derogation of its duty to take investigative or
prosecutorial action does not render any unchallenged action legitimate. Surely
in a free society, the
Nor is Congressional inaction sufficient to nullify and obliterate the rights
of
specific constitutional violations, or for that matter to petition a court to declare
and adjudge that the electoral process has been perverted by fraud. The rule in
a free society must be the contrary: whenever authority or eligibility are
questioned, Congress, and in default of Congressional action,
and should presume the absence of authority and eligibility. The Federal
Judicial Courts are the final recourse of the people, and the access of
to the Courts to challenge the unconstitutional exercise of authority is
guaranteed by the First and Ninth Amendments.
QUO WARRANTO
Or at least, this is the theory behind the law of
and was (as a practical matter) the point at which the undersigned counsel, on
behalf of her clients, the Plaintiffs, began her quest for the preservation of truth,
justice, and the American Way: by what credentials, qualifications, right or title
does any person who holds office claim his right to that office. The common law
writ of
level in the United States (in that it is limited in exercise to the Attorney
General), and deprecated at the state level.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 6 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
4
Plaintiffs contend that
Amendment as this clause of the Bill of Rights was understood and presumed by
the Founders. It is the promise of the reservation of the right to bring the
sovereign prerogative writ of
(and indeed, only politically realistic) remedy for violations of the Constitution
by public officials and agents. It was to give the Courts the independence to
judge and punish constitutional violations and derogations without fear of
political reprisal that the Founders gave life tenure to Article III judges.
Plaintiffs accordingly demand that this Court breathe life into
warranto
v. Mellon
PLAINTIFFS’ PRELITIGATION INQUIRIES: quo warranto & FOIA
Quo Warranto
On March 3
rd undersigned attorney has submitted a
complaint on behalf of some of the plaintiffs as relators to the Attorney General
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 7 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
5
of the United States, Mr. Eric Holder (Letter and Application for Writ attached as
Exhibit G). Mr. Holder did not respond.
On April 1
st the undersigned attorney has submitted
on behalf of some of the plaintiffs as relators to the U.S. attorney for the District
of Columbia Jeffrey A Taylor. Mr. Taylor never responded, but rather quit his
job within 60 days. No response was ever received from his successor U.S.
Attorney Channing Philips either (Certified Receipts of letter to Mr. Taylor
Exhibit H). When the government (attorney general) does not proceed with
quo warranto
and institute their own action as Relators. That what was done in this action.
Defendants show a certain confusion of mind at several points in their
Motion to Dismiss, for example in their discussion of
16‐18 of their September 4, 2009, Motion to Dismiss when they write that
Plaintiffs express “apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of
Columbia” (Motion to Dismiss at 18, ll 1‐3).
What Plaintiffs actually reported on pages 14‐16, ¶¶32‐38 of their First
Amended Complaint, was the story of
shows the futility of making demands on the Attorney Genral in the District of
Columbia not as shown by precedent but by treatment involved in silencing a
fellow attorney (Hemenway) who earlier this year dared to TRY to raise
questions concerning Obama’s eligibility in the D.C. circuit, he was sanctioned
merely for trying. The mere fact that several courts have unjustly closed the
door on this inquiry is not evidence that the inquiry itself is frivolous or
unwarranted. It is more likely evidence of the political nature of some of the
courts, and of a concerted effort to “chill” professional enthusiasm for politically
dangerous constitutional challenges (See C.J. Taney in
Luther v. Borden below).
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 8 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
6
The question is not one of precedent, the question is whether politics
dictate the outcome in many or most Obama‐related cases, where avoiding
discovery and fact‐finding is the primary (and outcome‐determinative) goal.
Plaintiff submits that if discovery is ever allowed in this case, it will be rapidly
settled by the resignation or impeachment of the President. If the stone wall of
secrecy and suppression is ever removed, if California sunshine is ever allowed
to shine for one day on the real evidence, the Presidency of Barack Hussein
Obama will be rapidly brought to a rather embarrassing close, and the
Defendants’ counsel know it, just as Judges Land and Lazzara know it in Georgia
and Florida. Secrecy and refusal to divulge information can have only one
possible purpose: to hide an inconvenient truth. Everywhere the Plaintiffs or
their counsel have gone, they have been met with resistance, which can only be
described as irrational if there were nothing to hide.
The purpose of pleading and arguing the elements and history of
warranto
acknowledging on venue principles that Plaintiffs will never have any fair trial
or anything close to due process in what is effectively the Defendants’ backyard.
Alternatively, this Court, pursuant to its powers under the declaratory judgment
principles of 28 U.S.C. §2201‐2202 or 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), utilize the principles of
constitutional and common law to fashion an appropriate modern remedy to
take the place of the “ancient writ” of
writ of
quo warranto or an equivalent remedy SHOULD be available to ensure
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 9 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
7
the sovereignty of the people over their government, and the democratic ability
of the people to engage in self‐governance and supervision over their servants:
The notion that standing is a bedrock requirement of constitutional
law has a surprisingly short history.
rejected a taxpayer suit to enjoin a federal spending program, is
generally thought of as the first modern standing case.
. . . . . .
One legitimately may wonder how a constitutional doctrine now
said to inhere in article III’s “case or controversy” language could be
so late in making an appearance, do so with so skimpy a pedigree,
and take so long to be recognized even by the primary academic
expositors of the law of federal courts.
Steven L. Winter,
It does indeed seem that the doctrine of standing has served to act as a
highly arbitrary and somewhat capricious guard at the Courthouse door, and
Plaintiffs demand their sovereign right of entry, even if this requires that the
Court reform or restrict the doctrine of standing to reinvigorate the First
Amendment in the Federal Courts by reinforcing the right to petition for redress
of grievances. As has been shown above, legal criticism of the effect of the
standing doctrine on jurisprudence is very intense. The simple truth is that this
doctrine is overextended and overreaching and should be reigned in.
Without the sovereign right of to presume lack of authority, and to demand
strict proof thereof, via
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1988(a), there may be no residual rights or powers of
self‐governance left in the United States of America. The majority of
by majority vote control all that happens within the framework of constitutional
law.
By judicially revisiting its origins in the First Amendment (“right to
petition”) and Ninth Amendment (intended to reserve royal prerogative writs to
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 10 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
8
the people) this Court can and should allow and empower the Plaintiffs by
resuscitation and renewal of
judgment power or borrowing the use of this writ (by choice of law from the
District of Columbia).
To the extent that it allows Plaintiffs’ Complaint and thereby does so
(resuscitates or renews the vitality of
breath to Footnote 4 as it declines to construe the Constitutional provisions and
statutes cited by the Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss in a manner which
would tend only to disempower or disenfranchise the Plaintiffs as a discrete and
insular minority, in particular as members of a conscientiously objecting
minority. In short, Plaintiffs ask this Court allow the constitutionally correct but
politically powerless minority to restore the majority to the straight and narrow
path, not just even, but especially when this majority have lost their path
midway along the road of life in a dark wood. (cf. Dante,
Inferno, Canto 1, ll. 14).
FOIA
Lead Plaintiff Captain Pamela Barnett alleges that she has in effect
exhausted her FOIA requests to the United States State Department, United
States Department of Justice, and other sources prior to the
inauguration of Barack H. Obama in January 2009 (Captain Pamela Barnett’s
January 2009 FOIA Request and State Department Response and Related
Documents are attached as Exhibit A). In addition, other Plaintiffs have
submitted FOIA requests and the structural and functional equivalent thereof
since becoming aware of the doubt concerning Barack H. Obama’s citizenship,
but the details on these other Plaintiffs’ requests were not available at the
present time. Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a
practical and substantive matter. The most valiant efforts on Plaintiffs’ behalf,
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 11 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
9
however, were not made formally under the rubric of FOIA, but directly and
informally by their undersigned counsel in the format of her dossiers (Exhibits
B‐F). Another one of the concerns raised by the defendants, was that of venue
based on residence in Orange County, and in fact, several plaintiffs reside in
Orange County or elsewhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States District Court for the Southern Division of the Central District of
California, although this is one of several matters that will best be resolved by
the filing of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
CLASSES OF PLAINTIFFS: OATH TAKERS and CANDIDATES
In addition to being citizen members of the body politic, American
Citizens at least within the meaning of the 14
th Amendment, electorate,
people
President in 2008, two of whom (Dr. Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot) are
represented by the undersigned counsel.
First to be noted is that there are currently 46 Plaintiffs represented by
the undersigned counsel. The largest group of Plaintiffs is composed of
members of the United States Military (all branches), Active, Reserved and
Retired subject to lifetime recall. The oath of a military officer is established by
5 U.S.C. §3331, which states:
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an
office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services,
shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 12 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
10
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about
to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths
required by law.
See also: https://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
Any officer who has taken this oath faces a personal decision and choice
regarding his answer to a question in life, the importance of which is hard to
measure or understand: what does it mean to “support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic,” and
what general or specific conduct does it require “to bear true faith and
allegiance to the same?” The answer is that if the Courts will not decide, “say
what the law is,” it is difficult to know or imagine who will. Cf., e.g.,
Madison
1
answer or even evaluate the critical question:
When the whims of a political majority violate the constitution, how does
a soldier reconcile the liquid and transient, almost effervescent, political
realities of command with his or her absolute constitutional oath, which brooks
no exceptions? The oath of a commissioned military officer is a solemn
covenant between that officer and all higher authorities, both of this earth and
outside it, that he will do not merely that which is ordered, but that which he
believes to be right. During the conduct of this case, the undersigned attorney
1
includes, significantly, [inserted after exactly the same language to take this obligation
freely, adds the language] “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United
States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice”.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 13 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
11
has seen at least two fine military officers punished and threatened on account
of their exercise of conscience, in accordance with their oath.
When the military Plaintiffs became commissioned officers and officers of
the United States, they took an oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution and to “well and faithfully discharge” the duties of
their commissions. Plaintiffs herein allege that they are being injured in their
employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report
to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mr. Barack Obama. Plaintiffs allege that
this requirement is in direct and unequivocal conflict with their oath and that
they cannot serve under Mr. Obama, without violating their oaths. Plaintiffs
also allege that, should they refuse to serve under, take direction from, or report
to Mr. Obama, they will be at substantial risk of disciplinary action, including
removal, for insubordination or other, related grounds. The recent cases of
Major Stefan Frederick Cook and Captain Connie Rhodes lend credence to the
fears of swift and brutal D.o.D retaliation for military officer’s exercise of their
First Amendment rights (Exhibit I).
Plaintiffs further allege that being required to serve under, take
direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior materially
and fundamentally (and adversely) changes the terms and conditions of their
employment as Military Officer. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and several lower
courts have recognized that placing a plaintiff in a position where he either
must violate his or her oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences
constitutes a direct, personal, and concrete injury for purposes of standing. In
Board of Education v. Allen,
an action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute that required local
public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to private parochial
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 14 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
12
schools. The Court found there could be “no doubt” that the school board
members had a personal stake in the outcome of litigation sufficient to confer
standing:
Appellants have taken an oath to support the United States
Constitution. Believing [the state statute] to be unconstitutional,
they are in the position of having to choose between violating their
oath and taking a step ‐‐ refusal to comply with [the state statute] ‐‐
that would be likely to bring their expulsion from office . . . .
Allen
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reached a substantially
similar conclusion in
Clarke v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 605 (D.D.C. 1988). In
Clarke
to challenge a federal statute that required them to adopt an amendment to the
District of Columbia Human Rights Act or face a loss of federal funding. The
Court found that the members had “oath” standing, citing the Supreme Court’s
ruling in
Allen
Alternatively, the court finds plaintiffs have oath of office standing,
under the principles recognized by the Supreme Court in [
Allen]. In
Allen
uphold the Constitution had standing to challenge the
constitutionality of a law when they risked a concrete injury by
refusing to enforce the law. In that case, plaintiffs faced a choice of
violating their oaths by enforcing a law which they believed to be
unconstitutional or risk expulsion from their jobs. Plaintiffs here
are similarly placed. Because Congress has conditioned all District
funds on the Council’s vote, the Council members must either vote
in a way which they believe violates their oaths, or face almost
certain loss of their salaries and staffs as well as water, police and
fire protection.
Clarke
Other courts have reached this conclusion as well.
of Minn. v. NACC
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 15 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
13
(1977);
Aguayo v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090, 1100 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied
414 U.S. 1146 (1974).
If anything, Plaintiffs’ injuries in this case is more concrete and compelling
than the circumstances of the board members in
Allen
members in
Clarke
inextricably inter‐twined with his employment. Because Plaintiffs are military
officers, they must serve under, take direction from, and report to
President Obama. Requiring Plaintiffs to serve under, take direction from, and
report to a constitutionally ineligible superior in violation of their oath is not
merely an “emotional response” that Plaintiffs might have to seeing
President Obama’s name on official documents, orders, or photographs in a
military mess hall. It is a fundamental and material change in the terms and
conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
Department of Defense have placed Plaintiffs in the position of either violating
their oaths or disregarding their chain of command, either action which would
result in almost certain disciplinary action, including removal, being taken
against Plaintiffs.
WHAT IF THE POLITICAL MAJORITY CHOSES SLAVERY?
If the State of California were, for example, by its famous system of
“Propositions” whereby the people amend the state constitution regularly, to
violate the plain letter of the Federal constitution by reinstituting chattel
slavery, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, there is little doubt that the
reaction would be swift: the United States Department of Justice would file suit
(with hundreds of
proposition declared unconstitutional. The reason for this is simple: the
constitution places outer boundaries on that which is politically permissible.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 16 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
14
The restrictions on the natural born citizenship status of a President of
the United States constitute a similarly absolute boundary. This United States
District Court can and indeed must decide whether the First and Ninth
Amendments reserve to the people their sovereign right to question (by
Petition) their grievances concerning electoral (political) violations of or
derogations from the absolute constitutional qualifications of the President. As
Daniel Webster argued to the Supreme Court in “the mother of all” political
question cases,
(1849):
1st. That the sovereignty of the people is supreme, and may act in
forming government without the assent of the existing government.
2d. That the people are the sole judges of the form of government
best calculated to promote their safety and happiness.
3d. That, as the sovereign power, they have a right to adopt such
form of government.
4th. That the right to adopt necessarily includes the right to abolish,
to reform, and to alter any existing form of government, and to
substitute in its stead any other that they may judge better adapted
to the purposes intended.
5th. That if such right exists at all, it exists in the States under the
Union, not as a right of force, but a right of sovereignty; and that
those who oppose its peaceful exercise, and not those who support
it, are culpable.
6th. That the exercise of this right, which is a right original,
sovereign, and supreme, and not derived from any other human
authority, may be, and must be, effected in such way and manner as
the people may for themselves determine.
In that case, Chief Justice Taney also held that whatever the power granted by
Article III, the power of the Federal Judiciary did not extend to judging state
constitutional violations of the “Republican form of Government” guarantee of
Article IV, Section 4:
Again, the Constitution of the United States enumerates specially
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 17 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
15
the cases over which its judiciary is to have cognizance, but
nowhere includes controversies between the people of a State as to
the formation or change of their constitutions. (See Article 3, sec. 2.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If it be asked what redress have the people, if wronged in these
matters, unless by resorting to the judiciary, the answer is, they
have the same as in all other political matters. In those, they go to
the ballot‐boxes, to the legislature or executive, for the redress of
such grievances as are within the jurisdiction of each, and, for such
as are not, to conventions and amendments of constitutions. And
when the former fail, and these last are forbidden by statutes, all
that is left in extreme cases, where the suffering is intolerable and
the prospect is good of relief by action of the people without the
forms of law, is to do as did Hampden and Washington, and venture
action without those forms, and abide the consequences. Should
strong majorities favor the change, it generally is completed
without much violence. In most states, where representation is not
unequal, or the right of suffrage is not greatly restricted, the popular
will can be felt and triumph through the popular vote and the
delegates of the people in the legislature, and will thus lead soon,
and peacefully, to legislative measures ending in reform, pursuant
to legislative countenance and without the necessity of any stronger
collateral course. But when the representation is of a character
which defeats this, the action of the people, even then, if by large
majorities, will seldom be prosecuted with harsh pains and
penalties, or resisted with arms.
Changes, thus demanded and thus supported, will usually be
allowed to go into peaceful consummation. But when not so
allowed, or when they are attempted by small or doubtful
majorities, it must be conceded that it will be at their peril, as they
will usually be resisted by those in power by means of prosecutions,
and sometimes by violence, and, unless crowned by success, and
thus subsequently ratified, they will often be punished as rebellious
or treasonable.
48 U.S. at 54‐55, 12 L.Ed. at 604‐605, 7 HOW at 122‐124 (1849).
Whatever the virtues of this bright‐line choice (between political action
by ballot and revolution, with no possibility of judicial intervention) may have
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 18 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
16
seemed to Chief Justice Taney’s “political question” doctrine plainly was NOT
intended to restrict the power of the Article III Federal judiciary to regulate the
Federal Government’s compliance with the Constitution.
As an alternative to Taney’s somewhat brutal implicit formulation “love
the status quo, change it by politics, or go foment a violent revolution and deal
with the consequences,” Plaintiffs herein join with and in the arguments
presented by their co‐Plaintiffs Robinson and Wiley in their parallel brief in this
case. Robinson & Wiley have pointed out that where no Constitutional remedy
exists for an outrageous and egregious constitutional violations, the Courts
ought to infer one, as they did in the application of the standards of a civil action
under 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988 to Federal Law Enforcement officers in the case of
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents
, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See
Document 67, Filed 09/18/2009, Page 6 of 18
& Wiley Drake’s Response to Motion to Dismiss at 2.
StandingPolitical
QuestionRedressability
The
Flast v. Cohen
“Reserved Rights” Solution
As discussed above, the Defendants ask this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s
complaint within a triangular stranglehold and vice of standing‐redressabilitypolitical
question. Parallel to but independent of this three‐pronged argument,
the Defendants claim that certain statutes, as well as the historical custom,
practice, and policy, of the evaluation of elections in the United States has
effectively deprived the Article III Courts of any power to adjudicate the
constitutional qualifications of the president.
The Defendants also claim that these same statutes, historical customs,
practices, and policies, deprive the
Courts to determine whether their highest Constitutionally designated officers
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 19 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
17
are in compliance with the elemental mandates set forth in Article II of the U.S.
Constitution. Accordingly, Defendants would now and forever leave
bereft of all power, short of the electoral power achieved by tyrannical
majorities (as they were described by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison in the
Federalist Papers
removed from office. As suggested above by the quote from Chief Justice Taney‐
‐‐this only leaves the unattractive option of armed revolution, and one primary
social function and practical purpose of the Courts is to uphold respect for law
and government and thereby to maintain the peace.
The residual power of discrete and insular minorities to protect not only
their own constitutional rights, but to assert the constitutional rights of all
people
144, Footnote 4‐‐‐“the most famous footnote in history”). In the field of First
Amendment freedom of speech and religious free exercise, the power of
discrete and insular minorities such as the Amish to delineate constitutional
absolutes is legendary, see e.g.
In the present case, Plaintiffs are a discrete and insular minority who
demand full enforcement and respect be afforded to that clause of Article II of
the Constitution which states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall
be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty‐five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” This clause is not selfenforcing
on its face, unfortunately. Who is to judge whether a person has met
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 20 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
18
these qualifications? Are any rights reserved by the Constitution to
except as political majorities?
Plaintiffs contend that the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all
reserve rights to
majorities, but collectively as discrete and insular minorities of conscience, and
that Complaint or Petitions filed with the Article III Constitutional Courts are the
legitimate paths of access by which
wrongs, and correct the deviations and derogations, which the somnolent if not
somnambulating political majority may from time‐to‐time allow. In short, it is
the right, province, and constitutional place and power of discrete and insular
minorities of dissenters to utilize their equal access to the courts to preserve the
constitution when the political system fails so to do, regardless of long‐standing
but constitutionally untested customs, practices, and policies. The theory, the
hope, the dream is, upon proper petition, the Article III judiciary alone will have
the strength and courage to reaffirm the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the
Land, and thereby to set aside abuses or individual violations and derogations
that long‐standing customs, practices, and policies (which is to say political
decisions) have allowed to occur.
The boundary between custom, practice, and policy having the
appearance or force of law and actual law is often difficult to survey and trace in
the landscape of litigation, and it is quite true that as a matter of historical
custom, practice, and policy, the Courts of the United States have never been
seriously called upon to judge the constitutional qualifications of any person
politically elected to the office of President of the United States. But at some
stage, the Courts must accept and recognize their judicial responsibility and
status as the effective forum of last peaceful resort in hours of national crisis.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 21 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
19
The Court’s duty in this case is to address first whether the Article II, U.S.
Constitutional legal requirements have been followed by the body politic, and
then to investigate whether any derogations resulted from fraud, which was, if it
occurred, massive, systematic, and quite unprecedented.
That is the sum and substance of Plaintiffs’ complaint, and by its very
nature these questions, which attack the heart and function of the political
system as having been constitutionally corrupted, are not susceptible to a
merely political resolution.
The Plaintiffs in this case demand that the Court delineate the boundaries
of the political and the constitutional, and declare and adjudge that the
of the United States have the right to delineate that which is the constitutional
right of a politically powerless minority of the people to secure for themselves,
and to protect the majority, even, from the follies of their own majoritarian
blindness.
All the cases concerning the establishment clause, and the excessive
entanglement of Church and State in this country, have been raised on behalf of
minorities such a Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists,
Quakers, and similar groups whose specific beliefs were offended by
majoritarian laws enacted by political majorities.
Plaintiffs propose quite simply that the rule of taxpayer standing
applicable to public support of religion, e.g.
1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968), be applied to the constitutional qualifications of
the President. The general rule is that both federal and state taxpayers do not
have Article III “case and controversy” standing to challenge a particular
expenditure of funds simply because they are taxpayers. Plaintiffs submit that
the
Flast v. Cohen exception is applicable in this case, essentially for all the
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 22 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
20
same reasons (including a focus on the fundamental rights secured by the First
Amendment) that it was applied in that other case to which no other ready
means of allowing entry to the Courthouse was possible. By application of
Ockham’s razor,
possible solution to the question of standing. It is appropriate because the First
Amendment’s Establishment clause is analogous to the Article II “natural born
citizen” clause as an absolute limitation on the unconstitutional exercise of
power by government whose effect (i.e. injury) will always be by definition
diffuse rather than particularized to any individual or group of individuals.
THE CONSTITUTION IS AN IMMUTABLE FRAME:
POLITICS ARE A MOVING PICTURE WHICH CANNOT EXTRUDE
Another way of putting this is that the “political question doctrine,”
properly applied, should exclude court challenges to anything, which may be
constitutionally done within the framework of the Constitution. It is well
known, however, that different levels of scrutiny apply even to that which may
(under certain circumstances), permissibly be done within the constitution
2
But in no case should the ability of
limited or constrained, because of Congress and the President fail to abide by
the Constitution, what recourse is there other than to the Court? Titles of
nobility, bills of attainder, ex‐post facto laws, and intergenerational “corruption
of blood” are all absolutely forbidden, just like slavery. But so is the accession
2
allowed on the most extreme of circumstances, whereas “time-place-and-manner” (e.g.
“media or location specific”) limitations on Freedom of Speech are subject to only
intermediate scrutiny, and restrictions on the content of purely commercial speech (e.g.
commercial advertising) is often subjected only to the lowest “rational basis”- test of
constitutional scrutiny.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 23 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
21
to the presidency of any person who is not a natural born citizen of the United
States.
This case, the Plaintiffs’ status as a discrete and insular minority (which
includes an exceptionally large number of members of the U.S. Military) has
made them members of new class, scorned in the establishment press as
“birthers”. Plaintiffs’ status as an ideological, politically powerless, minority
arises from their constitutional devotion to the enforcement of a constitutional
clause which, probably because of its simple and self‐explanatory nature, has
never before been judicially recognized as an enforceable right of the people to
be pronounced and enforced in a constitutional court. Defendants’ attempt to
trivialize the importance of the constitution and its mandates by arguing that
any supposed violation of Plaintiffs’ individual rights is too slight to support
standing.
Earlier in this Memorandum of Points and Authorities, an implausible
hypothetical reintroduction of Slavery by popular plebescite in California was
proposed as an example of a popular electoral act that would not receive even
the slightest “political question” abstention nor demand that anyone be
“enslaved” before a Court would declare this proposition to be unconstitutional.
The redress would come in the declaration of unconstitutionality. Even if the
proposed new slavery had no proposed “target class” of persons to be enslaved,
it would doubtless be enough to say that “all Americans are offended if there is
the chance that even one would ever be sold and reduced into slavery.” The
offense to all Americans is likewise complete if a President was inaugurated on
January 20, 2009, despite having concealed, disguised, and obfuscated his true
natural born citizenship as that of another country.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 24 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
22
So, the fact that this is a case of first impression does not render it
frivolous. In fact, in this case, it is the Plaintiffs who rest their case on an
express, simple, but sound constitutional mandate, and the Defendants who can
find no constitutional text whatsoever to support their own position.
The Defendants’ open, and make a cornerstone, of their September 4,
2009, Motion to Dismiss with a rather curious confusion arising from their own
difficulty in line‐drawing between the roles of Congress and the Courts when
they write:
Plaintiffs cannot use this Court to investigate and decide the
President’s fitness for office or their related claims, however,
without contravening the very Constitution that they purport to
uphold, which provides that the Electoral College and the Congress
have exclusive jurisdiction of such political disputes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Plaintiffs have failed to meet the jurisdictional and statutory
prerequisites or again seek to have this Court adjudicate issues that
are textually committed to other branches.
Case 8:09‐cv‐00082‐DOC‐AN Document 56 at Page 8 of 32; Obama et
al. Defendants Motion to Dismiss at 1, ll. 8‐12.
The issues sought to be raised by Plaintiffs in this case regarding
both whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen of the
United States,” and therefore qualified to be President, as well as
any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes cited in the
First Amended Complaint are to be judged, according to the text of
the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and
not the judicial.
Idem
Plaintiffs and their undersigned counsel are astonished at this bold
assertion by the Defendants of a precept of constitutional law, without any
textual citation. The Defendants’ failure to cite or quote any language from the
Constitution is understandable because the precept articulated above simply
does not exist. Nowhere does the constitution or any statute or other law limit
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 25 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
23
the direct power and right of the
constitutional qualifications of their (even if duly) elected leaders, including a
judicial interpretation of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II, and a
resulting judicial application of that interpretation to the President, even if that
application includes a recommendation of removal:
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that
“[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its
words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as
distinguished from technical meaning
.”
282 U.S. 716, 731, 51 S.Ct. 220, 75 L.Ed. 640 (1931); see also
Gibbons v. Ogden
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it
excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been
known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
D.C. v. Heller
A further source of the Defendants’ confusion and inability to draw proper
lines and boundaries between historical custom and practice, on the one hand,
and the right and power of the
the plain letter of the constitution on the other, arises from their profound
mischaracterization of this case as one exclusively concerning elections and
electoral procedure and related law. Electoral law concerns the procedures for
voting and allocation of representation among the population and geographic
territory of the United States.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case concerns the reserved rights of the
people,
specifically the fundamental First and Ninth Amendment rights of the
people
people individually and collectively, by and through all lawful means and not
merely through the electoral process, to demand strict conformity and
compliance with the elementary precepts of constitutional integrity. Defendants
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 26 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
24
show their confusion of questions of electoral procedure with the
constitutionally absolute rights of the
Plaintiffs ask this Court to entertain a challenge to the 2008
election of President Barack Obama by requiring the President to
disprove, in this Court, their innuendo alleging that he is not a
“natural born citizen” within the meaning of the United States
Constitution.
Case 8:09‐cv‐00082‐DOC‐AN Document 56 at Page 8 of 32; Barack Obama
et al. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 1, ll. 4‐8.
And then further:
This Court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to determine any
issues related to the President’s fitness to hold office, and this case
should be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered
accordingly.
Idem
The word “
recently and importantly construed the rights of the “
rights secured to them as a group. Indeed, Plaintiffs dare to approach this
Court to assert that the enforcement of the letter of the Constitution is in fact
“Right of the People”:
The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the Second
Amendment] is that it codifies a
unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right
of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assemblyand‐
Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search‐and‐
Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar
terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to
individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be
exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a
context other than “rights”‐‐the famous preamble (“We the
people”), § 2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 27 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
25
members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that
those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the
States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the
people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution
does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than
an individual right.
“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in
select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the
people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and
Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved
in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons
who are part of a national community or who have otherwise
developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered
part of that community.”
D.C. v. Heller, supra
, 128 S.Ct. at 2790‐1; 171 L.Ed.2d at 650 (2008)(citing
United States v. VerdugoUrquidez
494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108
L.Ed.2d 222 [1990])(bold emphasis added).
CONCLUSIONS
This response is timely filed on the Equinox, Monday, September 21,
pursuant to Rule 6(a)(2) because of the intervening Federal Holiday on Labor
Day. Plaintiffs pray that the Court deny Defendants’ Document #56 Motion to
Dismiss in all respects, grant Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing on analogy to the
Establishment Clause standing authorized by the United States Supreme Court
in
that the First and Ninth Amendments expressly reserve to
generalized right to petition for redress of grievances caused by constitutional
violations such as the establishment of religion or the violation of the “natural
born citizenship” requirement of Article II.
Respectfully submitted,
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Equinox
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 28 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
26
By:______________________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney‐at‐Law
(California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949‐683‐5411
Fax: 949‐766‐7036
E‐Mail:
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 29 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
27
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and
not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this,
Monday, September 21, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the
Plaintiffs’ above‐and‐foregoing Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’
9‐4‐09 (Document #56) to the following attorneys attorneys whose names were
affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in
accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
LEON W. WEIDMAN
ROGER E. WEST
roger.west4@usdoj.gov (
President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTE
David.Dejute@usdoj.gov
GARY KREEP
usjf@usjf.net
FACSIMILE (213) 894‐7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Monday the 21
st
Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Tel: (512) 923‐1889
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 30 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
1
EXHIBIT A:
“Capt. Barnett’s January 2009 FOIA Request
& State Dept. Response”
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 31 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
1
EXHIBITS BF:
“Dossiers # 1,3,4,5,6”
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 32 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
1
EXHIBIT G:
“Letter & Application for Writ”
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 69 Filed 09/21/2009 Page 33 of 35
1
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
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
DR. ORLY TAITZ, FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
1
Exhibit I:
“Capt. Roads letter reporting pressure against
testifying”
Comments
5 Responses to “”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 22nd, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Wow, Orly, you sure can plead! Especially loved the Equinox stuff, although I must say I didn’t understand it since the Equinox is tonight.
I am really impressed with your knowledge of literature and especially of staning law. Quite an amazing work. I have read lots of legal pleading and I can honestly say I have never seen anything like this!
September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Great post, Dr. Taitz! I had a few questions, but this cleared them up for me.
Keep up the fight against this fake and unlawful president. You’ve always been a fighter, and that’s why we continue to support you thru thick and thin.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Wow – they can’t hope to compete with such a plethora of legalese.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
When will the court respond? Or will the defendants be given an opportunity to counter this?
September 22nd, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Dr. Taitz, remember one thing, “If God be for us, who can be against us?”
________________________________________________
King – He Had A Dream …. Obama – We Got A Nightmare!
Rather than making history, Obama is on track to repeating it!