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)
Read More at obamaballotchallenge.com
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Interested in some BIG news which the above article appears to make??!!
The sentence: “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.”
Mark Hatfield, Attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia case before Judge Malihi, filed a “Motion for Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof” on behalf of his clients on January 19th. Malihi IGNORED IT, making no ruling, but stating prior to the hearing that the burden “probably rested with Obama.”
If the above article is correct–and I’m sure it is–it means the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment based on the fact that Obama and his attorney failed to appear at the hearing and failed to respond to the demands of a subpoena. Under the law, the judgment for the plaintiffs is automatic!!
If the SC already RULED as to the burden of proof, I would think an appeal of Malihi’s decision could be based on that alone! And it would be an automatic winner. I’d sure like to hear from “combatvet” on what his brother has to say about this.
There are many, many law suit filed against Obama all across the nation. Most have been thrown out, or ignored. This judge made a fool out of himself by thinking he could cause Obama to do anything. There was never a doubt he would be on the Georgia ballot.
Spelunker, it appears you are a paid troll of Obama’s. How did I come to this conclusion? Simply your vain attempt to give the Obama answer, i.e., Obama is above the law of the land and only answers to George Soros. If we could ever find a neutral judge (one who is not a Democrat) the outcome would be obvious. Obama is not eligible under Article !!, Section 1 of the US constitution to be eligible to hold the office of President of The United States. We need to retire him, Harry Reid, and all other Democrats running for office this year. I know Harry Reid is not running for office, but if the Democrats lose their majority in the Senate, then Harry Reid loses his job. There will be a day of reckoning some day and we want it to be November 6th, 2012. Obama’s budget, which he released today, contains the same crap of his budget last year and not even one Democrat Senator voted for last year’s budget. What possessed Obama to think this year’s budget would be accepted?
Quite the opposite, my friend. Obama does not recognize any authority over him. He is a dictator, so the only relevant rules are those he devines. Assuming the judge is a high school graduate, he knew it was a waste of time to issue a supoena expecting Obama to show. I am certain the pressure on this guy was enormous and he caved. What did you want him to do, risk his life? No appeal in the Federal courts would be successful, because all the judges are liberal political appointees. A warrant by a Georgia judge would be effective only in Ga. Not really relevant anyway, because no president can be arrested.
Doug,
First let me comment on the reply directly below yours from spitlurker. He is a paid serial troll!
As far as my brother is concerned the judge in the Georgia ballot case violated his oath of office and any measure of professional ethics. He should be immediately removed from the bench and tried for judicial malfeasance! Failure to respond and appear before a court on an issue subpoena is a crime against the court and would be an automatic finding for the plaintiff on all counts, period! For a judge to present an affirmative defense for a violator of a court ordered subpoena is unheard of in this or any other case. It’s a criminal violation of his oath of office and the Constitution. Worse yet, is providing a faulty state court decision over presidential supreme court rulings is, on it’s face, criminal. Supreme courts ruling trump state court rulings, unless they are amended. The secretary of state as well violated his oath of office in not upholding the plaintiffs claim and his statement of peril for the plaintiff, if they fail to appear as ordered by the subpoena. I can’t state it more firmly………failure to honor a court ordered subpoena automatically leaves the offender in contempt of court and therefore abandon any and all defense in said case thus the finding for the plaintiff is automatic on all counts! This judge must be removed from the bench immediately, tried for judicial tyranny, ethics violations and willful failure to uphold his oath of office. He is by any measure, He and the secretary of state are accessories to a crime of enormous proportion. My brother has never heard of a judge providing any defense whatsoever to a defendant who fails to appear on a court ordered subpoena or for any reason. A judge is commanded to be an impartial observer and adhere strictly to the rule of law. Immediately upon the criminal finding, this case should have been remanded to superior court where failure to appear on a subpoena is a slam dunk and finding for the plaintiff would be automatic. I can’t imagine this ruling would stand in another court , there is just no way!
I agree, Doug. Important point., Tommy Thompson/lawyer is to be commended for digging this decision/precedent up.
All of these cases need to learn from each other.
Onward and upward.
DA JUDGE was over come by da jackal!!!!!! no question!!!, this monster is DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH!!! and I mean that literally!!!!
I hope they appeal this judges rulings…. Contemp ot court is contempt of court and if you or I failed to show up we would have had an arrest warrant against us and jailed….. This judge should be removed from the bench……
I’m a resident of Alabama and very proud that my state has chosen the right thing to do on this matter.Hope more states will do the same…