| BREAKING: Orly Taitz - Military - Motion Fights The B. Hussein O. Fraud |
|
|
|
| Written by Administrator | |
|
by Barry Weinstein
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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’ L-R 7-10 Gates, Secretary of Defense, § MOTION FOR LEAVE TO Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § FILE SUR-REPLY TO President of the Senate, § MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. § Plaintiffs’ L-R 7-10 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Plaintiffs hereby move and request leave of court to file a sur-reply in response to Defendants’ Reply filed and served on
L.R. 7-10 Reply Papers. A moving party may, not later than the seventh calendar date (not excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) before the date designated for the hearing of the motion, serve and file a reply memorandum, and declarations or other rebuttal evidence. Absent prior written order of the Court, the opposing party shall not file a response to the reply. Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants have raised new matter in their reply which require an answer. Namely, the Defendants submit cast in a highly prejudicial light to the Plaintiffs’ cause, namely the orders of the Honorable Clay D. Land from the Middle District of Georgia. It is true that
Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the question of “redressability”, and this matter needs to be clarified in light of the Plaintiffs’ substantive due process contentions regarding the intersection of the First and Ninth Amendments as sources of the right of discrete and insular but politically powerless minorities to invoke strict scrutiny of obvious deviations from and therefore to enforce precisely and exactly the letter of the Constitution on the model of Flast v. Cohen and this charge requires a surreply. Finally, the Defendants continue to misrepresent the Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding standing and how standing as a barrier to self-governing enforcement of the Constitution through Petition to Article III Courts (as advocated by the Defendants, in any case) would itself constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process of law in the enforcement of the plain letter of the Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ pray, pursuant to L.R. 7-10, that they be allowed to file a surreply to Defendants’ response in this case, and even to do so as late as Thursday, October 1, 2009, especially since they are precluded from filing their Second Amended Complaint prior to the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by this Court’s Minute Order entered Thursday, September 24, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Dr.
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
E-Mail:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
PROOF OF SERVICE DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Saturday the 26th day of September, 2009. Charles Edward Lincoln, III |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Latest 10/14/08 - AMERICA BETRAYED - hosted by NWS' JOHN CLARK
| Home |
| Welcome |
| News |
| All Articles |
| Links |
| Contact Us |
| FAQs |
| Search |
| Categories |
| Member Gallery |
| Columnists |
| NWS STORE |