Ankeny v. Daniels: Opposition Heard on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

by Phil on 02/27/2009

Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse, Plaintiffs in the pending Indiana case, Ankeny v. Daniels, had been facing a Motion to Dismiss, specifically from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels:

In two sentences, Counsel for the Governor admitted our argument (the “general election” elected electors) and showed that the Certificate of Ascertainment was false.

The Governor wants to dismiss our case, but he wants to rely upon a false certification.

What’s got the Governor in a bind is the fact he knew sitting Senators Obama, Biden and McCain were not eligible to be elected as electors, and he certified the election anyway.  He wants us to believe he did everything required of him.

We did not require that he lie in order to certify the election!

I don’t have a lot more to say other than what’s in the brief.  We have a hearing on the motion February 26.

The States of Michigan and Alabama faced similar motions to dismiss and made arguments similar to our.  However, we have admissions from the Governor the other States don’t.  The State of Alabama has an order for trial by jury.

I intend to ask for such an order at our hearing.  The brief was filed Tuesday, received Wednesday, so it’s fresh.

Yesterday’s hearing apparently did go well…

Our day in court went very well!

Thanks for all the prayers and well-wishes.  The Lord helped us present the essence of the case and both the Judge and Counsel for the Governor were impressed with all they heard.  We hope it will NOT be dismissed but proceed to trial.

I’ll write about it later today.  I am very busy getting an emergency stay out the door on a criminal case.

I’ll be adding comment on the hearing later.

IndyStar write-up

Someone who visited the hearing is contacting ‘WorldNetDaily,’ so something may appear there.

I’ve linked to the Opposition Brief in the first quote, above. It is 19 pages and easily readable.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

There are 39 comments in this article:

  1. 02/27/2009shotgun00 says:

    Phil, If I could sign up for jury duty on this case it would make my day. Love you Linda

  2. 02/27/2009Phil says:

    shotgun00,

    Should this case get to the point of being in front of a jury, it’s likely that the Defendant’s lawyer would question folks on their bias for the case; not sure if you’d pass on that.

    -Phil

  3. 02/28/2009David E. says:

    Interesting. I had not seen this case before. What do you suppose the chances are of this one being reviewed in a court?

    What’s the current line in Vegas?

  4. 02/28/2009P. Barnett says:

    So if this goes to trial, will they be able to court order obama’s birth certificate and other vital docs?

    If this case does not prove hie is not an NBC, what good is it for getting Obama to step down??

  5. 02/28/2009soolemon says:

    Please let us know when Steve Pidgeon releases that dossier he said would be posted in 2 week.That was a few weeks ago.

  6. 02/28/2009Poppet says:

    All Linda would have to do is act like “Shultz” on “Hogan’s Heroe’s
    and say, “I Know Noth-ink”. then zing em later…..

    I was amazed at what is in the “brief’.

  7. 02/28/2009Pete says:

    I don’t think it will matter if the jury is stacked for or against the plantiff. Discovery will be enough.

  8. 02/28/2009Tom says:

    Phil, I was wondering if there is any way to speed up this process to have it come up soon to keep Obama from destroying America. That is what Obama is trying to do. He’s in a hurry to do it. There is noone that will ask him any questions about any thing. He said “some says not to do nothing” about the economy. Who the hell is the SOME that says this?

    Tom

  9. 02/28/2009Just me says:

    Bill Kruse, If you read this say hello to your brother for me. I will call him soon..Keep up the fight it is a fight worth fighting..

  10. 02/28/2009bdaman says:

    Phil, I posted another article at Newsvine http://bdimainman.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/28/2488619-military-steps-up-attack-on-obama
    Trying to expose it a little more. Check it out an e-mail me if you think I should change anything.

  11. 02/28/2009SOMEONE PLEASE SECOND THIS MOTION TO "KNIGHT (HEREIN) PHIL"!! says:

    Hear ye

    Hear ye,

    All you “Queens and Kings” of Cyber Kingdom, can we get a :

    ***KNIGHTING OF SIR PHIL***

    For herein EXCELLENT REPORTING OF THE SO VERY IMPORTANT MATTER, AND PATIENCE WITH

    BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT WING UNDERSTANDINGS, AND COUNCELING TO THE UPSET AND HARASSED BY

    POLICTICAL EXTREEMIST!

    ***CAN WE GET SECOND TO THE MOTION**?

  12. 02/28/2009Mary says:

    I read your case and it looks very good. I would almost want to say, I think you gotem. But knowing the logic or lack there of, of the courts I hesitate. Nice pro se work too. I do have a question though.
    If the candidates names cannot be on the ballot because we elect electors and the electors can’t be serving reps, then are you implying that the electoral college names should have been there instead OR should a simple statement at the top of the ballot, such as, “the electors for” Candidate Obama and Candidate McCain, been placed there??

    Would that have made it legal, except for their natural born status? I wonder how many other states this would effect. Nice loophole for now though. Obviously, if the state legislatures actually cared about the qualifications of candidates and the Constitution, we wouldn’t be in this situation. But it amazes me what people have to go through to make them do their jobs. If a false certification of the election is the only way we can force our reps to confirm their miniscule qualifications, so be it. But if they change the election ballot to, “the electors for candidate xyz”, then we won’t be getting anywhere. We all know what this is leading up to for the future. They don’t want to adhere to the Constitution and they want to get anyone in there that they please.
    Good work!
    Mary

  13. 02/28/2009Mary says:

    Does anybody know if the Michigan and Alabama case failed? I clicked on the link for Alabama on the Eligibility Lawsuit page and it went to the Indiana case. They are not showing on the defunct case page either.
    thanks mary

  14. 02/28/2009Phil says:

    P. Barnett,

    I would say that it all depends on what gets admitted, what is brought about during discovery, etc., etc. Clearly, retrieving vital documentation from the President might be par for the case, should it get a hearing.

    -Phil

  15. 02/28/2009Phil says:

    Tom,

    Actually, one of the points of the Plaintiff’s Opposition brief was that it naturally takes longer to see about hearing a case than the Governor had time to certify the electoral vote count.

    The wheels of justice move slowly in order that all parties have reasonable time to argue their points.

    -Phil

  16. 02/28/2009Phil says:

    Mary,

    At this time, I am not aware of the Alabama-based eligibility lawsuit. This could be for publicity sake; it could also be because nobody’s alerted me as to the specifics thereof.

    -Phil

  17. 02/28/2009Concerned Citizen says:

    In Virginia the ballots did say “Electors for Obama”, etc. I asked
    several voters “Can you name just one of the Electors that you just voted for?” No one could name one. This is the way the two party system has corrupted the Constitutional process. Instead of electing
    Electors voters are tricked into selecting party selected slates of
    robots who mindlessly vote as they were instructed to. The concept
    of the independent Elector picking the best person for the job has
    been lost. This is the reason the Founding Fathers did not trust
    democracy. They knew the next stop is tyranny.

  18. 02/28/2009Jackie Smith says:

    I second that!!!

  19. 03/1/2009Mary says:

    The Alabama and Michigan case were referred to in the last post for Ankeny v Daniels case above.

    right above:

    Yesterday’s hearing apparently did go well…

  20. 03/1/2009Mary says:

    I don’t know if I would feel comfortable with Electors deciding who is right for the job for me.

    I don’t think I am comfortable with some of our citizens deciding who is right for the job.

    Perhaps it is time to do away with the Electors or find a better way to get this done. Obviously those who are charged with checking three qualifications can’t even manage that.

  21. 03/1/2009Mary says:

    When we are all gone and the history is written. It will be believed that nobody cared about our Constitution and we did away with the requirements for the POTUS.

    BUT the USSC’s legacy will be that it came before them and they chose not to deal with it. And that will be their legacy and I would think about that if I were them. If they at least wrote something someone could say well they considered it and came to the wrong conclusion. But this way they will be blamed for letting it happen when they had the power to make things right.

  22. 03/1/2009Phil says:

    Mary,

    The Electors of the Electoral College are in no way legally obligated to substantiate a candidate’s eligibility for the office of the presidency.

    -Phil

  23. 03/1/2009Bob says:

    “The State of Alabama has an order for trial by jury.”

    What is the source of this statement in the post?

  24. 03/1/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    Phil,

    This case presents a finely nuanced question of law, not of fact, so a trial (if any) would not go the BC issue. Essentially, the complaint challenges the way the Indiana ballot reads. Although the voters of that state were, in actuality, voting for Electors, the names of the electors did not appear on the ballot. Rather, the names of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates were named on the ballot. The plaintiffs are arguing that the voters were presented with a ballot on which Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin were being chosen as “Electors.” Since an Elector may not be selected from the ranks of Senators, and Obama, Biden and McCain were sitting US Senators on the date of the general election, the plaintiffs argue that they were ineligible and therefore the election should be invalidated.

    The case hinges on the court buying their argument that Obama was running on the Indiana ballot to be his own Elector.

  25. 03/1/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    At the moment, the source is one of the Plaintiffs in Ankeny v. Daniels.

    It is true that many State-based eligibility cases have been flying under the radar, as it were, so as to not draw attention to them for challenging a very politically popular President. I think the commentary on my site is plenty of evidence that one would need copious amounts of intestinal fortitude to actually file such a petition.

    -Phil

  26. 03/1/2009Phil says:

    GeorgetownJD,

    With all due respect, you certainly have the innate ability to observe the obvious!

    At the very least, it’s an interesting tactic to use. Of course, nobody knows how this is going to proceed, but it’ll be interesting to watch.

    -Phil

  27. 03/1/2009Concerned Citizen says:

    That would be the reason the Founding Fathers did not trust democracy. Everyone has what they feel to be a reasoned opinion and they want to express it by voting. However most have been the victim of political propaganda. What the Founding Fathers were looking for were experienced wise people
    that were not easily led. The concept worked well for the first six elections or so.

  28. 03/1/2009Bob says:

    At the moment, the source is one of the Plaintiffs in Ankeny v. Daniels.

    As you are the one who posted this plaintiff’s statement, perhaps you could return to him, ask him the source of this statement, and report back to your dear readers?

    It is true that many State-based eligibility cases have been flying under the radar, as it were, so as to not draw attention to them for challenging a very politically popular President.

    The name “Wild Bill” ring a bell? Or this commentary: “Since the Internet allows for great anonymity, it can be difficult to separate truth from fiction. On the other hand, it’s also becoming very convenient to look up public records to verify if stories are true or not.”

    Others who also are cataloging the lawsuits have noted this Alabama case:
    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-almdce/case_no-2:2009cv00019/case_id-39830/

    …Is this the case being referred to? Because it is otherwise quite unbelievable that the first of these cases to survive pretrial dismissal has otherwise gone unnoticed.

  29. 03/1/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    You said, “Because it is otherwise quite unbelievable that the first of these cases to survive pretrial dismissal has otherwise gone unnoticed.”

    How is that? As far as I know, the only case out of the State level that got any kind of mainstream publicity was Leo Donofrio’s case, 2 days before it was to be considered in Conference.

    Further, the only reason why I know anything about this case is because someone approached me about it, who in turn was able to track down the Plaintiffs.

    In other words, most of the publicity of these cases comes when someone percolates on up to the blogosphere level and says something about it.

    Incidentally, regarding “Wild Bill,” it is true that that particular case was given more publicity than it should have in the “early days” of covering these cases. Of course, it’s not only been this particular case that has been vaguely mentioned in a lawsuit; Mr. Kreep’s case with Dr. Amb. Alan Keyes mentions numerous cases which haven’t been publicly verified as far as I know.

    As always, if I have credible information about any of these cases, I’ll certainly be sure to post ;)

    -Phil

  30. 03/1/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    The obvious? Perhaps to you and me. But if it were really that obvious, no one would be asking about when jury trial will be held. Questions of law are tried to the bench.

  31. 03/1/2009Bob says:

    You said, “Because it is otherwise quite unbelievable that the first of these cases to survive pretrial dismissal has otherwise gone unnoticed.”

    How is that?

    1. Because putting the president on trial is the holy grail that birthers are waiting for. Every trivial filing in other cases are breathlessly announced, analyzed, and debated. Surely an order setting a case for trial would receive as much attention as a surreply in FOIA-request case.

    2. Because putting the president on trial would be a newsworthy event. CNN covered Senator Shelby’s remarks about this issue; surely they would also report Obama going to trial over this issue.

    As always, if I have credible information about any of these cases, I’ll certainly be sure to post

    And, apparently, you’ll post incredible information as well.

  32. 03/1/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    You said, “And, apparently, you’ll post incredible information as well.”

    I do my best to do so.

    You also said, “Because putting the president on trial is the holy grail that birthers are waiting for.”

    I do believe you fall under the same misguided intentions that the Politico does. The point here has never been to “put the President on trial.” The point is to unseal his vital documentation, which doesn’t require the President to be put on trial.

    Also, you further fail to see that no case is going to garner any kind of press attention until it actually reaches the hearing stage which, to date, I am unaware of any that have done so. Just because Mr. Ankeny’s case and an alleged Alabama case have a request for trial by jury doesn’t mean that’s necessarily going to happen. And, yes, I am rather well aware of the fact that after having tracked these cases since the original 12 (or so) in late October, 2008 that the press isn’t going to cover them until something substantial happens.

    I’ll conclude this comment with an observation. Very similarly to the Politico, you seem to be biasing the argument for the President’s eligibility on “sore losers” who want nothing but revenge against this President. While there may be those out there who wish this, my particular site does not in any way support “getting” the President.

    If he’s eligible, then that’s fine, and I will continue to oppose his socialistic agenda for America. If he’s not eligible, he needs to be removed from office.

    -Phil

  33. 03/1/2009Bob says:

    You said, “And, apparently, you’ll post incredible information as well.”

    I do my best to do so.

    “Incredible” means “too extraordinary and improbable to be believed.”

    An apt discription of these issues.

  34. 03/1/2009Phil says:

    Bob,

    OK, so I left you with a hole through which you could fly a 747. Do forgive me for the mistake of misreading your commentary.

    -Phil

  35. 03/2/2009da verg says:

    I don’t know if I would feel comfortable with Electors deciding who is right for the job for me.

    >>i believe that is the Constitutional method, per the Constitution.

  36. 03/2/2009da verg says:

    GT wrote

    Although the voters of that state were, in actuality, voting for Electors, the names of the electors did not appear on the ballot

    >>>i believe this is covered by the Constitution. If the judge fails to notice this, then the plaintifs have an excellent opportunity on appeal.

  37. 03/2/2009Phil says:

    da verg,

    I don’t think that wayward Electors is really an issue over which one should be overly concerned. After all, a plurality of States already have laws that say their Electors must vote according to that State’s popular vote count.

    Further, this is precisely why I like the Electoral College: it respects each State as an individual (versus a national popular vote), and it consolidates the results of all States’ popular voting totals for a more representative outcome.

    As an aside, this “consolidation” aspect is part of the reason why the RNC has invoked “winner-take-all” primaries versus the DNC’s concept of district-by-district vote, subject to override by the super-delegates (in the DNC’s case, it’s almost as if they’re saying, “We respect the concept of popular vote to the point that said vote agrees with our establishment.”).

    -Phil

  38. 03/3/2009David says:

    How is it an apt description when every other President elected before Obama was born to two US citizens within the United States? This very precedent, coupled with how “natural born citizen” is defined in The Laws of Nations, a treatise the founding fathers would have been very familiar with, is more than enough to make this issue credible.
    For further convincing, I suggest you read what the framers of the 14th amendment had to say about what the definition of “citizen” and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant to them.

  39. 03/3/2009David says:

    Bob, another point regarding the “natural born citizen” issue. Consider the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It states, “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;…”
    Using this definition, Obama would not even be considered a citizen of this nation as he was, at birth, a British subject.

Write a comment:

You have to log in to write a comment.