Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com
No. 10-
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Petitioners,
v.
Respondents.
A
235886
ii
LIST OF PARTIES
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . . . i
LIST OF PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
OPINIONS BELOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
STATUTES AND POLICIES AT ISSUE . . . . . . . 3
ix
Table of Contents
Page
I. There Is No Effective Federal Mechanism
To Challenge Candidate Eligibility . . . . . . . 8
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
http://www.BirtherReport.com - http://www.ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A — MINUTE ORDER OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNT Y OF SACR A MENTO, DATED
MARCH 13, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1a
A P P E N DI X C — O R D E R D E N Y I N G
P E T I T ION F OR R E V I E W OF T H E
SUPREME COURT OF CA LIFORNIA ,
FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36a
http://www.BirtherReport.com - http://www.ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com
xi
Cleaver v. Jordan,
393 U.S. 810, 89 S.Ct. 43 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marbury v. Madison,
1 Cranch 137 (1803) 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). . . . . .
Robinson v. Bowen,
567 F.Supp.2d 1144 (N.D.Cal. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . .
STATE CASES
U.S. CONSTITUTION
xii
Cited Authorities
Page
FEDERAL STATUTES
3 U.S.C. § 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STATE STATUTES
OPINIONS BELOW
2009, on the grounds that the Petition did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any of
RESPONDENTS, that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction
over the subject of the action as alleged in FAP, and that
FAP suffered from a defect or misjoinder of parties (CT
728). The Trial Court sustained the demurrer on the
ground that FAP did not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action against the named RESPONDENTS,
because the pleading did not seek any relief as to either
OBAMA or BIDEN (CT 1102). The Trial Court also
stated that FAP does not prove that California Electors
have a duty to review their candidate’s eligibility (CT
1103). The court sustained RESPONDENTS’ demurrer
on the ground that FAP suffered from a defect or
misjoinder of parties because it contained allegations
concerning future elections and, since the future Electors
are indispensable parties to such a claim, the Electors
must be before the court (CT 1103). The trial court also
sustained the demurrer on the ground the Court has no
jurisdiction over the subject of the action (CT 1103). The
Court stated that the exclusive remedy for challenging
the qualifications of the President is an action before the
United States Congress pursuant to the 12th Amendment
of the United States Constitution and 3 United States
Code (hereinafter referred to as “U.S.C.”) § 15 (CT 1103).
Lastly, the Court stated that the case was moot because
the Secretary of State had already placed the candidates’
names on the ballot, the election had already taken place,
and the President and Vice President had already been
inaugurated and had engaged in the duties of their offices
(CT 1103).
http://www.BirtherReport.com - http://www.ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com
JURISDICTION
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
STATUTES AND POLICIES AT ISSUE
I.
10
II.
11
12
13
14
III.
15
16
17
18
19
CONCLUSION
Respectfully Submitted,