The battle in Pennsylvania is joined. On one corner Mario Apuzzo and Karen Kiefer for Kerchner/Laudenslager; and in the other John P. Lavelle, Jr. for President Obama.
Briefs were flying today from both sides. (Check my Pennsylvania page for updates.)
- Nomination Petition Objection
- Brief on Behalf of Objectors
- Scheduling Order
- Motion to Strike and Dismiss of President Barack Obama (2/28)
- Memorandum of Law of President Barack Obama in Opposition to Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
- Memorandum of Law of President Barack Obama in Opposition to Motion for Testimony Via “Skype”
- Obama request for scheduling conference
The President’s side is giving no quarter, opposing Mario Apuzzo’s admission pro hac vice. Jablonski didn’t even challenge Orly Taitz in Georgia! This looks like a no-holds-barred battle with no empty chairs.
I’ve finished reading the Obama memos, and in particular the Motion to Strike and Dismiss. I must say that it looks to me like this case will be dismissed right out of the gate without any necessity to reach the question of President Obama’s actual eligibility.
The cute thing is that Lavelle argued that in Pennsylvania a candidate’s nominating petition can only be challenged by members of his own party. Kerchner is a registered Republican and Laudenslager switched from Republican to Democrat after the deadline for filing a challenge had passed. Oops!
Lavelle declares that challengers totally wrong in their claim that Obama submitted any document in Pennsylvania declaring himself eligible and so the court can as a matter of law cannot find any defect relating to a claim that is is not eligible. Lavelle further argues that since there is no valid allegation of a defect in the nominating papers, the court could only make some general ruling on the candidates eligibility which state courts are not constitutionally able to do, the sole responsibility for presidential eligibility lying with the Congress.
And finally Lavelle argues that Obama is eligible anyway and it was interesting that he cited the very three cases, Ankeny, Farrar and Tisdale, that just this morning I added to the Wikipedia article on the Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. I was pleased to know that I hadn’t missed something important. I didn’t look to see of the quotations were identical, but they were independently selected.