Main Menu

The last Dummett standing

I wrote in my article “New: Dummett for President,”  that John Dummett hastily signed up (May 15 to be exact) as a write-in candidate for President in Tennessee in order to provide standing in the lawsuit styled Liberty Legal Foundation v National Democratic Party of the U. S. A. (NDPUSA whoever they are, was subsequently dismissed as a defendant).

LLF Attorney Van R. Irion has filed a memorandum of supplemental authorities from familiar birther lawsuits, Sibley and Tisdale in support of Dummett’s newfound standing as a candidate.

I am not a lawyer, but I think Irion has a point that one candidate has standing to sue another one.

At this point it might be helpful to refer to Judge Carter’s ruling in Barnett v. Obama (cert denied by the Supreme Court last Friday). Plaintiffs in the Keyes lawsuit included candidates, in particular Keyes, Drake, Lightfoot and Robinson, who were far more serious contenders than Mr. Dummett.  Judge Carter was loathe to go down the “slippery slope” of the defense argument that the plaintiffs were not “serious candidates” because they had no chance of winning. So Judge Carter concluded:

Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and whether the political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers hurdles of justiciability.1

The redressability question was different in Keyes because the lawsuit was filed after President Obama’s inauguration, which is not the case for this 2012 election lawsuit.

In my view, Keyes is a much better case for Irion to have cited, since it addresses standing of candidates directly. Perhaps he hasn’t read the case. However, there is a fatal flaw in Irion’s theory, and that is that Mr. Dummett only became a declared candidate after the lawsuit was filed. I don’t think plaintiffs get to change the facts of the case in midstream.

TN 2012-06-7 LLF – LLF Notice Re Supplemental Authority (Tisdale)

Update:

Attorney Van Irion informed me by email that he had cited Barnett v. Obama in an earlier brief.


1The Court of Appeals corrected this part of the decision, saying that the plaintiffs were not candidates at the time of the filing of the lawsuit, and so they lacked standing; however, this point does not, I think, invalidate the application of Carter’s reasoning to the LLF case.

, , , , , ,

17 Responses to The last Dummett standing

  1. avatar
    BillTheCat June 11, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    Coincidentally, the above was just struck down:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96750179/AZ-2012-06-11-LLF-ORDER-Striking-Plaintiff-s-Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-azd-651381-39-0

  2. avatar
    realist June 11, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    “The redressability question was different in Keyes because the lawsuit was filed after President Obama’s inauguration, which is not the case for this 2012 election lawsuit.”

    Don’t forget Obama is not a defendant in this nor the TN lawsuit of Dummett.

  3. avatar
    Daniel June 11, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    “ANotice of Supplement Authority can bring new authority to the Court’s attention withoutargument. Plaintiffs’ “Notice” includes more than two pages of argument”

    That’s courtese for “hey numbnuts… read the directions!”

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 12, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    I presume this can be fixed by removing the argument.

    BillTheCat: Coincidentally, the above was just struck down:

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 12, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    Obviously they were terrified of having to face the empty chair again.

    realist: Don’t forget Obama is not a defendant in this nor the TN lawsuit of Dummett.

  6. avatar
    Bob June 12, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    Presidential candidate may be removed from ballot in Michigan:

    “Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R) told the Libertarian Party last month that Johnson filed his paperwork withdrawing from the GOP presidential primary back in November 2011 three minutes too late (4:03 instead of 4 p.m., according to a letter from Johnson’s office to the Libertarian Party), and thus fell prey to the state’s “sore-loser law,” which bars candidates who lose in a party primary from switching to another party to run in the general election.”

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/libertarians-say-republicans-afraid-to-face-gary-johnson-in-mitt-romneys-home-state-3.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

  7. avatar
    JPotter June 12, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Obviously they were terrified of having to face the empty chair again.

    Nobody expects the Vanished Inquisition!

  8. avatar
    Scientist June 12, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    Bob: Presidential candidate may be removed from ballot in Michigan:

    This just points out the idiocy of having a partisan figure deciding who is on the ballot and counting the votes afterwards. It would be like having Joe Girardi umpiring Yankees games-even as a fan of the Bronx Bombers, I wouldn’t want that.

    It seems the Libertarians have found a way around the problem, though. They found another Gary Johnson, a businessman from Texas, who is willing to be on the ballot in Michigan.

  9. avatar
    richCares June 12, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    this just in, the Comedy Channel’s requets to televise the IN vs Taitz hearing was denied. We will have to depend on FogBow for reports.

  10. avatar
    Rickey June 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    richCares:
    this just in, the Comedy Channel’s requets to televise the IN vs Taitz hearing was denied. We will have to depend on FogBow for reports.

    The hearing is scheduled to begin in a few minutes. FogBow has an observer in the courtroom.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 12, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    I changed the title of the case from Keyes to Barnett. I don’t know why the case changed names over the course of the process, but the decision from Carter labels it “Barnett.”

    I just sent Mr. Irion an email suggesting this authority for his case.

  12. avatar
    Rickey June 12, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    Even if Dummett’s newly-formed status as a “candidate” improves his chances of establishing standing, how does he establish that he has a concrete, particularized injury? The fact that Obama’s electors will be on the ballot doesn’t prevent Dummett from running his write-in campaign. His alleged injuries are speculative, which by itself guarantees another fail.

  13. avatar
    brygenon June 13, 2012 at 12:25 am #

    “[…] Keyes, Drake, Lightfoot and Robinson, who were far more serious contenders than Mr. Dummett.”

    It’s funny because it’s true.

  14. avatar
    Whatever4 June 14, 2012 at 3:36 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I changed the title of the case from Keyes to Barnett. I don’t know why the case changed names over the course of the process, but the decision from Carter labels it “Barnett.”

    Keyes and Drake dropped Taitz as their attorney, so Kreep appealed their portion of the case. Taitz had nothing to do with the appeal. Barnett and the remaining horde stayed with Taitz.

  15. avatar
    realist June 14, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    Whatever4: Keyes and Drake dropped Taitz as their attorney, so Kreep appealed their portion of the case. Taitz had nothing to do with the appeal. Barnett and the remaining horde stayed with Taitz.

    The case was initially titled Keyes v Obama as he was the first name listed by Orly on the initial complaint. When she filed her First Amended Complaint (cuz she’s a dummy) she listed her “plaintiffs” in alphabetical order and Barnett was the first listed, so the case became known as Barnett v Obama.

    Drake and Robinson petitioned to drop Orly and be represented by Kreep (not Keyes). When the case was appealed to the Ninth, Kreep filed first. The Court consolidated the two appeals, but since Kreep filed first the case would forevermore be known as Drake v Obama.

    When Kreep decided to petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari (apparently) Keyes wished to participate, as Orly did not petition SCOTUS. Kreep listed him first on the writ… therefore at SCOTUS.. Keyes v Obama.

    That is the history and the whyfor of all the name changes.

  16. avatar
    Whatever4 June 14, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    realist: The case was initially titled Keyes v Obama as he was the first name listed by Orly on the initial complaint.When she filed her First Amended Complaint (cuz she’s a dummy) she listed her “plaintiffs” in alphabetical order and Barnett was the first listed, so the case became known as Barnett v Obama.

    Drake and Robinson petitioned to drop Orly and be represented by Kreep (not Keyes).When the case was appealed to the Ninth, Kreep filed first.The Court consolidated the two appeals, but since Kreep filed first the case would forevermore be known as Drake v Obama.

    When Kreep decided to petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari (apparently) Keyes wished to participate, as Orly did not petition SCOTUS.Kreep listed him first on the writ… therefore at SCOTUS.. Keyes v Obama.

    That is the history and the whyfor of all the name changes.

    Realist, of course, is correct.

  17. avatar
    Northland10 June 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    The case title has all these layers (Keyes, Drake, Barnett, etc.). It must be a fake case.

    Whatever4: Realist, of course, is correct.