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)
If a presidential or vice presidential candidate’s “natural born citizen” status is in doubt, the candidate has a responsibility to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving the doubt. Until such judgment is rendered, the candidate cannot legally swear to his/her eligibility (ref Stephen Tonchen Primer)
2. Any and all registered voters in the State of Alabama have standing to challenge the eligibility of any candidate.
3. Even though this case is very similar to Mr. Hendershot’s case in Birmingham Alabama, this case was filed prior to that case going to court. The case in Birmingham Civil Court was dismissed with no reason given to Mr. Hendershot by Judge Lee other than a biased comment made to Mr. Hendershot which I would rather not repeat here. The merits of that case and all other cases of similarity have NEVER examined the merits. In addition, no case anywhere has EVER determined that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible for the office of President.
4. Plaintiff agrees to waive his request for the production of a physical copy of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate due to the fact that we know it cannot possibly exist and the fact that it would be no factor in determining Obama’s natural born citizenship status since Mr. Obama has already admitted to the public that he was indeed a British citizen as well as an American citizen at birth. (Fight the Smears.com) By this acknowledgement alone, Mr. Obama never has and never can be a “natural born citizen”.
5. I find the defense’s assertion that this is a frivolous case to be an insult to all Americans who believe in and stand by the Constitution. This case involves most likely the biggest Constitutional crisis in our history. This is not a “Political” case. This is a “Constitutional” case.
6. In addition, this court may find cause to “jurisdiction” in the rule of “Misprision of Felony”. The Democratic Party of Alabama is well aware that their candidate Mr. Obama, was a “dual citizen” or “foreigner” at birth and therefore not a natural born citizen. Surely the Democratic Party of Alabama knows this and has known this since the 2008 election but yet have failed to do anything about it.
“Misprision of felony” is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.
Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Subscribe free to ObamaBallotChallenge.com. Please forward. We’re also on Facebook