Main Menu

Archive | Lawsuits

Taitz touts Texas transcript today: Titus tried Tuesday

Orly Taitz published an official transcript of her October 29 hearing in Taitz v. Johnson in Texas on her blog today. It’s an immigration case where Taitz claims she was injured by catching a disease from an undocumented child she treated in her dental office.

In other birther judicial news, birther third-party presidential candidates1 Ed Noonan and John Dummett have appealed their loss in Dummett v. Bowen in California federal circuit court to the Supreme Court. The petition for writ of certiorari was filed yesterday. [Link to case at SCOTUS | Link to Petition] As with many birther ballot challenges, plaintiffs contend that various state officials have a duty to verify the eligibility of candidates for President of the United States. This proposition was rejected by courts in California, New Jersey, Florida, Alabama and other states. Co-plaintiffs John Dummett and Edward Noonan are asking the Supreme Court whether states must enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for candidates for president. Some states have on occasion rejected obviously ineligible candidates (e.g. California, New York and Hawaii), but deny that they must perform investigations of eligibility. The counsel of record is William J. Olson, with the U. S. Justice Foundation and Herb Titus, among others, listed.


1Dummett was a write-in candidate, and Noonan win didn’t the nomination of his party, the American Independent Party.

Universe-shattering: Decision in Judy v. Obama

If I receive a favorable decision this could be the universe shattering decision we have been patiently waiting for.

– Cody Robert Judy

That’s a big Large image of the word IF!

Judy writes about his case in an editorial at the Post & Email and his own web site. He’s has been around the judicial track a few times (not to mention his incarceration) with Obama lawsuits, including a trip (unsuccessful) to the Supreme Court. This time it’s the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (case 14-4136) where he says that his case1 has been distributed.

The argument before the Court is laid out in Judy’s brief, a document that is somewhat difficult to follow through it’s near page-long sentences and twisted thought process. Still we can glean that Judy (a candidate for President in 2008 somewhere) claims that his civil rights were damaged by Obama’s “Campaign vehicle” because Obama was ineligible and the political parties ganged up to marginalize him.

Judy’s case apparently was dismissed because he did not effect service on President Obama, but Judy disputes this saying that service was valid and that he should have received a default judgment:

At issue is the cold hearted perpetration of criminal wrongdoing or actions of maliciousness being given the wink-wink by those in seats of authority; Federal Rules of Service of Process being violated by the Court’s refusal to recognize a validated witnessed and proof of and in a ‘Return of Service’ and ‘Affidavit’,  actually getting out of its seat of judgment to act as an attorney for the Defendants because the defendants/Appellee’s failed to answer the Courts own demanded 20 Day Summons to file an answer or judgment by default would be taken against them as is stated in the 20 Day Court issued Summons. (sic)

The original lawsuit was based on a number of legal theories and allegations, including a violation of the Sherman antitrust act, which he applies to political parties. Still at the heart it was an eligibility complaint that said:

Defendant Obama is not a natural born citizen having declared from various documents he was born in Kenya and his father was a Kenyan at the time of his birth.

Further allegations in the suit were:

  • Obama is an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro
  • Obama’s long form birth certificate is fraudulent or forged
  • Obama’s draft registration is fraudulent or forged
  • Defendants labeled Judy’s previous lawsuit a “birther action”
  • Obama is not a natural born citizen according to the “definition” in Minor v. Happersett

Maybe I need to buy universe shattering insurance from Mutual of Steve.


Cody v. Obama also names as defendants:

  • Obama for America
  • Nancy Pelosi
  • Mitch Stewart
  • Jeremy Bird
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  • Jim Dabaki
  • Matt Lyon
  • Harry Reid

Judge rules against Obama; Taitz can’t find case

Orly Taitz has an article up titled “I need help in finding this Pennsylvania case of Juarez Escobar (sic), where fed, judge stated that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional. Do not see anything in PACER under Juarez Escobar in PA recently.” I like to think of my self as a good person and a helpful one. Taitz, as far as I can tell, auto-deletes my comments, so my attempt to give her the case number and a link to the decision didn’t work. (Awwww.)

This brings me to a point about looking up federal lawsuits online. There is a web site, Justia.com, where one can lookup federal lawsuits, and this web site is a very useful free public resource for finding cases, one that I use frequently; however, it is not the actual federal court system, PACER, and it does not always have everything in the PACER system. I couldn’t find this case at Justia either, even when putting in the hyphen that Orly dropped (actual name is Elionardo Juarez-Escobar). However, the real PACER Case Locator has the case (2:14-cr-00180-AJS). Use of the PACER Case Locator requires a PACER account. I actually went to PACER first in this instance because I knew Taitz was having trouble.

The case itself is interesting and District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said in his order that President Obama’s Executive Action (not Executive Order) was beyond the Administration’s power of prosecutorial discretion, and therefore unconstitutional. His reasoning, as I read it, was based on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is something applied on a case-by-base basis, and not to classes of people as Obama outlined.

Other legal experts have written that Obama’s action is of the same kind exercised by other presidents for decades.

Taitz writes:

He will be deciding on the aspects of Obama’s immigration dictates being unconstitutional, in the actual case brought by Orly Taitz. Judge Hanen is the SAME ..

Actually, the Taitz case involves transportation of undocumented children and is based on her claim of getting sick through treating one of them. That morphed into a case about Ebola, and that transmogrified into a generalized opposition to Obama’s Executive Action, something that happened after she filed her case.

One might want to tell Taitz to shut up, as she is not the representative of the American people and has no individual standing to bring such a lawsuit. Taitz claims “taxpayer standing,” something I have read many time did not apply to Obama eligibility cases. Taitz, however, cites to a case:

Further, Obama claims that Taitz lacks standing as a tax-payer, however this is patently false, as the Supreme Court in Flast v Cohen, via decision penned by the Chief Justice Earl Warren found that US tax payers have standing to challenge actions by the government, as long as those actions relate to spending allocated by the Congress based on it’s spending and taxing power and those actions  are illegal.

The Court’s decision in Flast v. Cohen does not grant general standing to all taxpayers. The Court set up this test for taxpayer standing:

To maintain an action challenging the constitutionality of a federal spending program, individuals must demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Art. III requirements. Pp. 392 U. S. 102-103.

(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. P. 392 U. S. 102.

(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. Pp. 1 392 U. S. 02-103.

Obama’s immigration initiative is no way a “spending program” or a “statute,” and Taitz has no individual stake in it (not being herself liable for deportation). In order to sue, the legislation challenged must exceed Constitutional limitations, not simply go beyond delegated powers. She fails both tests. The Flast case had to do with state spending to support religious schools in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Read more:

I demand that birthers stop filing lawsuits (writ of mandumbass)

One ticks off failed birther lawsuits, but as the losses mount (including just recently Orly Taitz’ appeal in the Colvin case), new ones fill in the void.

A writ of mandamus is an  order issued by a court that a public official must do something that they are legally required to do. It is an extraordinary action, and not at all common. In this instance a birther named Richard David Hayes has filed what he calls a “Criminal Complaint and a Writ of Mandamus” with a parish court in New Iberia, Louisiana.

The lawsuit names state officials, including Governor Jindal, as well as Louisiana’s Congressional delegation. Of course state officials have no jurisdiction to take any action regarding Obama’s eligibility, and the members of Congress have no obligation to take any action (impeachment being the obvious one). A court is certainly not going to order a member of Congress to impeach anyone—it would be an egregious violation of the separation of powers.

As for the criminal complaint, that’s not possible from a private citizen.

The suit has been reported by Gerbil Report ™ with some details of the complaint, which I think is based on Cold Case Posse stuff and Lord Monckton stuff from  2012.

The suit will be thrown out sooner or later, having no basis in law. The only interest for me is what birthers think is important in proving their theory.

 

Richard David Hayes added to Birthers from A to Z.

Strunk something

Christopher Earl Strunk had a court appearance on the 24th of November. An email from him appears at Gerbil Report™ and it provides a narrative of what happened. The problem with this report (and others of its kind) is that it comes from someone who reads things differently than I do, and as a result what he thinks happened or what it means might be different from what I would have understood or reported.

It appears that Judge David Schmidt told Strunk to file default motion if defendants (and there are many) fail to respond in a time adequate for a March 26, 2015 hearing date. Nothing was reported as to what that date might be. The comments about someone admitting something seem to be some sort weird interpretation rather than anything actually said.

The convolutions of multiple cases and judges seems not worth the trouble to try to keep track of. What intrigued me was the statement:

The BHO falsified instrument was presented for the purpose of getting ballot access to the 2012 General Election here in New York as an act of treason against the Constitution for the United States.

What Strunk is saying here is that Obama released his birth certificate to the press in April of 2011 for the purpose of getting ballot access to the 2012 General Election in New York; however, I am not aware of any New York official watching TV or accessing the White House web site in order to make a determination of whether Obama should be on the ballot in 2012 or not.

Arpaio v. Obama, and other legal stuff

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has not been lucky with attorneys lately.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s office has been operating under a court-appointed monitor after it was determined that they were guilty of racial profiling. Judge Snow appointed Robert Warshaw as the monitor. According to the Greenfield Reporter,

Snow says he will have Robert Warshaw, who is monitoring the agency on the judge’s behalf, investigate any allegations that he feels the sheriff’s office isn’t examining in good faith.

Warshaw has said his team has never seen more unprofessional interviews than those conducted by Arpaio’s employees who are running the investigation.

Ouch! Judge Snow said in court yesterday (November 21) that Sheriff Joe could be held in contempt of court! Arpaio is appealing the decision by Snow, but he’s run into another snag: the attorney representing him wants out, citing ethics concerns, says the Associated Press:

A lawyer representing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a racial profiling case says legal ethics compel his firm to step aside.

As one might expect, no details of what the ethics concern is about were made public, although it was detailed in court filing earlier in the week.

The embattled sheriff is trying to take the offensive, by suing the President over his announced new immigration policy, reports Reuters:

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose force used racial profiling during a crackdown on illegal migrants last year according to a judge, said Obama has overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and bringing in the changes himself.

I wonder who’s paying the legal bill, and who Arpaio could get to represent him in the case? The second question is easily answered from court filings: Larry E. Klayman. What is a little difficult for me as a layman to determine is whether Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, or as Sheriff of Maricopa County. Arpaio is described in the complaint caption as  “Elected SHERIFF of Maricopa County,” but the complaint does not use the phrase “in his official capacity,” nor does it suggest that the County is a party to the suit. It looks like Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, and that immediately raises the question of standing. In addressing the issue of standing, the complaint states:

27. Plaintiff Joe Arpaio is adversely affected and harmed in his office’s finances, workload, and interference with the conduct of his duties, but the failure of the executive branch to enforce existing immigration laws, but has been severely affected by increases in the influx of illegal aliens motivated by Defendant Obama’s policies of offering amnesty….

The other defendants are Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriquez, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Eric Holder, Jr. Attorney General.

Read more:

KPHO Story on Klayman and the suit