From Tommie Thompson:
This is a copy of my response to motion to dismiss in my Alabama case. It would hope others will use this or parts of it in their cases:
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Comes now the Plaintiff, Tommy Thompson. The defense for Mark Kennedy is requesting the dismissal of this case under 17-16- 44 of the Code of Alabama (1975) and Rule 12(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. I contend that 17-16-44 Code of Alabama was not intended to be used in this particular situation. In fact, in a recent letter from the office of Secretary of State, Beth Chapman, her letter states “Alabama law gives the Alabama Courts the authority to issue injunctions”. This was in direct reference to these cases challenging Barack Obama’s placement on the Alabama State ballot.
1. Plaintiff seeks for the defendant to provide proof of his eligibility to be placed on the Alabama State ballot as a candidate for the office of President of the United States. All candidates must meet the requirement for the office they seek, that includes Mr. Obama. The mere fact that he is now President and was elected in 2008 only “assumes” that he is a qualified citizen for the office of President of the United States. We contend that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” as required for the office of President. If the public had been made aware of his ineligibility, he would not have been elected, nor placed on the ballot.
According to a 1948 Supreme Court opinion, every Federal office holder bears the burden of proof as to her or his eligibility to hold office. If there are doubts concerning a presidential or vice presidential candidate’s “natural born citizen” status, the candidate is obligated to resolve those doubts before taking office.
Now that Obama’s [natural born] citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States … is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence. (Vieira)