Main Menu

Lamb Loses Lawsuit

Thomas A. Lamb believes that citizens have a right to see the personal records of candidates for President, including their college and medical records. He filed suit against Obama and Romney in Alaska Superior Court to get them. (Romney was eventually dropped as a defendant.)

The Superior Court ruled against Lamb for 4 reasons:

  1. Failure to prefect service
  2. Lack of standing
  3. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
  4. Failure to state a claim for relief

Lamb lost on appeal and on March 12, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on items 2-4, not addressing service.

Read the decision.

, , ,

13 Responses to Lamb Loses Lawsuit

  1. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2014 at 2:08 pm #

    In Judge Pfiffner’s opinion he outlines why Lamb’s claims of fraud fail. If birthers had any sense they would read that section and apply it to the CCP stuff. Then they might begin to understand why the CCP will fail in the March/April/Summer reveal.

  2. avatar
    nbc March 15, 2014 at 3:31 pm #

    as expected

  3. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2014 at 4:11 pm #

    We’ve all heard those grounds for dismissal before. The problem with birther pro se or Orlylaw plaintiffs is that they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

  4. avatar
    nbc March 15, 2014 at 6:37 pm #

    Joey: We’ve all heard those grounds for dismissal before. The problem with birther pro se or Orlylaw plaintiffs is that they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

    And these are not some trivial failures, they reside at the foundation of our legal system.

  5. avatar
    Any Day Now March 16, 2014 at 3:32 am #

    Well, anyone who doesn’t prefect service deserves what they get, but can we agree on a general point?

    Doesn’t anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the Commander-in-Chief, whose life is subject to the whims and judgment of the military’s leader – doesn’t any such individual have a tangible interest in the birth documents that substantiate the nativity claims of the one with all the power?

    Didn’t Terry Lakin, and anyone serving in the military, have a tangible interest in the birth records of the prez?

    Shouldn’t Hawaii allow them to see the originals?

    The answer is: Of course.

    It was a rhetorical question.

    Thank you for your indulgence.

  6. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2014 at 4:52 am #

    Any Day Now: Didn’t Terry Lakin, and anyone serving in the military, have a tangible interest in the birth records of the prez?

    No, not at all, I fail to even understand your so-called logic.

    In fine, it is the role of your Congress to vet your President. Once that is done, the game is over.

    Could you imagine the chaos if every member of the armed forces had the right to check, double check & triple check the credentials of everyone issuing orders?

  7. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2014 at 4:55 am #

    Any Day Now:
    Well, anyone who doesn’t prefect service deserves what they get, but can we agree on a general point?

    Doesn’t anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the Commander-in-Chief, whose life is subject to the whims and judgment of the military’s leader – doesn’t any such individual have a tangible interest in the birth documents that substantiate the nativity claims of theone with all the power?

    Didn’t Terry Lakin, and anyone serving in the military, have a tangible interest in the birth records of the prez?

    Shouldn’t Hawaii allow them to see the originals?

    The answer is: Of course.

    It was a rhetorical question.

    Thank you for your indulgence.

    No, we cannot agree on your point, which is ludicrous.

    You need to read up on the de facto officer doctrine. Google it.

    When I was in the Navy, I did not have the right to demand to see proof that my Commanding Officer actually graduated from Annapolis or proof that he had actually been appointed to be the Captain of my ship. I did not have the right to say “Show me your papers.”

    And Hawaii law spells out who has a tangible interest in seeing the birth records of someone born in Hawaii. Terry Lakin did not qualify.

  8. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 16, 2014 at 5:11 am #

    The short answer to your questions is NO! The long answer is still NO!

    Lakin’s option was to obey the lawful order of his immediate superior, or chain of command, and he chose not to do so, at which point, he self destructed his career, and probably his life. Whether he liked or believed that there was someone in his chain of command who was not whatever, is irrelevant to his disobeying a direct order.

    As to your questions, rhetorical does not cover stupid and ignorant.

    Any Day Now:
    Doesn’t anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the Commander-in-Chief, whose life is subject to the whims and judgment of the military’s leader – doesn’t any such individual have a tangible interest in the birth documents that substantiate the nativity claims of theone with all the power?

    Didn’t Terry Lakin, and anyone serving in the military, have a tangible interest in the birth records of the prez?

    It was a rhetorical question.

  9. avatar
    aarrgghh March 16, 2014 at 5:39 am #

    papers please
    birfzarro ordered
    from his new superior
    them’s the rules
    for those not born
    with a white exterior
    burma shave

  10. avatar
    Majority Will March 16, 2014 at 8:30 am #

    Disrespect, defiance and willful ignorance of U.S. law are common characteristics of birtherism.

  11. avatar
    The European March 16, 2014 at 8:44 am #

    Joey:
    We’ve all heard those grounds for dismissal before. The problem with birther pro se or Orlylaw plaintiffs is that they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

    /offtopic
    I have a good friend who loses in chess all the time because he makes the same dumb mistakes over and over again. He loves to go skirmishing with his cavalry …

  12. avatar
    The Magic M March 17, 2014 at 5:13 am #

    Lupin: Could you imagine the chaos if every member of the armed forces had the right to check, double check & triple check the credentials of everyone issuing orders?

    No birther seems to even remotely understand how the military operates, which makes me doubt (m)any of them ever actually served (and the few who obviously did, like Kerchner, are intellectually dishonest).

    Any Day Now: a tangible interest in the birth documents that substantiate the nativity claims of the one with all the power

    According to the de facto officer doctrine, all orders from an ineligible President are still legal and valid.
    Only orders which are themselves illegal on their face (such as “shoot these children!”) can legally be disobeyed. “I believe the CiC was born in Kenya” is not grounds for disobeying orders.

  13. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

    The day of my high school graduation it was announced that the principal had been fired. We later learned that he falsified his qualifications and he was not actually qualified to be a high school principal.

    His signature is on my diploma, but I have confirmed that the diploma is valid. The de facto officer doctrine in action!