A couple of days ago, I again watched one of my favorite movies, The Hunt for Red October. Jack Ryan, the protagonist, is also the name of a collection1 of legal documents at the Scribd web site that is an essential source of material on birther legal actions and where I go for much of the source material for this web site. So what’s up, Jack2?
Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc.
Plaintiffs are opposing a motion to dismiss (MTD) in this federal lawsuit in Arizona. The MTD said that the Plaintiffs’ issue has been “rejected by every federal and state court to consider the issue.” Plaintiffs struggle to distinguish their case from the others. It would seem to me that the essential point of their case, however they frame the specific injury and whoever they target as defendants, is that Barack Obama is not eligible as President because of the citizenship of his father. In fact a federal court did explicitly reject that premise in the case of Tisdale v. Obama.
This is the case in which Plaintiffs’ attempted to obtain a default judgment against a Republican group in Tennessee called the “National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc”. Instead Judge Bolton dismissed the complaint against the NDPUSA for lack of service.
What I found interesting, however, was a statement contained in the First Amended Complaint:
Election codes and procedures of various states currently leave State election officials dependent upon accurate and truthful representations from political parties regarding the qualifications of candidates to hold Federal office. Specifically, the 50 Secretaries of State depend upon truthful representations by the Democratic Party that the individual selected by the Party as its candidate for the office of President of the United States is constitutionally qualified to hold said office. When the Secretaries of State receive a document from the Democratic Party identifying the Party’s candidate for President, the Secretaries of State are compelled to have that candidate’s name placed on ballots in all counties of their state. It is well established that the function of the Secretaries of State in this capacity is ministerial; meaning that the Secretaries have no authority to refuse once the Democratic Party has delivered the required documents.
The Liberty Legal Foundation’s position flies in the face of quite a bit of birther precedent in suing state secretaries of state. I doubt that Judge Bolton will ignore birther precedent when dismissing the case.
Taitz v. Democratic Party of Mississippi
In this case, the defendants have removed the case to federal court. Taitz has filed a April 27 motion opposing removal with the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Taitz lies in the motion when she says:
…including senior deportation officer from the Department of Homeland Security showing that Barack Obama is using forged identification papers as the basis of his eligibility and legitimacy for the US Presidency…
I was present in Atlanta when former federal officer John Sampson testified, and I even spoke to him at length following the hearing. He was clear in his testimony and to me that he was not claiming that Obama’s identification papers were forged, only that his judgment was that they warranted investigation.
Taitz also stupidly states that the Mississippi Secretary of State cited no authority supporting the removal of the case. I wrote this up in my article: “Removing Orly Taitz”.
Democratic attorney Begley has sent a letter3 to the plaintiffs added by Orly Taitz in her amended complaint. Begley notes that none of these new plaintiffs signed the complaint and so he asks them whether they authorized their inclusion in the suit. He points out that Orly Taitz is not admitted to practice law in Mississippi and cannot represent them. He warns:
Should you decide to proceed as a party you will be required to respond to motions and discovery, appear at hearings and depositions, and be liable for frivolous filings.
1It was an oversight that I didn’t have a link to the Jack Ryan collection under the reference links lower right on my site. It’s been added.
2Dr. Conspiracy: There’s some updoc on your shoulder.
Birther: What’s updoc?
3The letter was sent by email because, not conforming with the rules, no postal address was provided in the Amended Complaint.