Main Menu

Tag Archives | Liberty Legal Foundation

Another birther attorney running for judge

imageTaking a page from Gary Kreep’s autobiography, birther attorney Van R. Irion is running for criminal court in Tennessee’s 10th judicial district, and so will leaving the post of lead counsel for the Liberty Legal Foundation, an organization that in addition to challenging Obama’s eligibility defends the rights of students to wear Confederate emblems at school.

The latest LLF graphic appears to the right. I don’t have a problem with this concept in the abstract, but I don’t agree that Irion is or represents God. The people ceded authority to the states, and the states ratified the Constitution, thereby binding the people to the process.

Van Irion is currently appealing the $10,565.23 in sanctions assessed in the case of  Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA.

The cost of birtherism–Part 3

The punishment phase

United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson in Tennessee has awarded Defendants $10,565.23 in the case of Liberty Legal Foundation v. Democratic National Committee of the USA. This is less than half of what the Defense asked for. Judge Anderson spent 17 pages explaining his decision.

This order goes against the Plaintiffs’ counsel, Van R. Irion, for needlessly multiplying proceedings, pursuant to 28 USC §1927.

It seems to me that with all of the significant birther lawsuits winding down, we’re seeing the Courts trying to make some defendants whole by assessing the costs of defending frivolous lawsuits to the birthers who brought them. Taitz was required to pay $20,000 as a punishment and $4,000 in costs in birther cases. This plus some small court costs bring the total to over $30,500. The threat of §1927 sanctions against Orly Taitz in Mississippi of much larger magnitude is looming. If we get a few more, I’ll do a table of them.

Read the order:

LLF-TN – ECF 53 – 2012-12-04 – OrDER Granting in Part Motion for Attorn

Previous articles in this series:

Tabulating the cost of defending a birther lawsuit

You should have known better

imageAttorneys for the Democratic Party are getting in line for a piece of the birthers. This time it’s in Tennessee in the case of Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. (sic). The US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee dismissed the suit and granted reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded to the defendants.

In a document filed late last week, the Defense details what those fees are. According the filing, the total cost of defending the lawsuit amounted to $69,932.50. Only the portion allocated to the Motion to dismiss and the Sanctions motion is to be awarded, and that comes to $22,800.

The sanctions order is being appealed.

Can you imagine what the fees would be for Orly Taitz in her case styled Judd v. Obama with no less than 31 defendants? Half a million?

The Democrats strike back

The Democrats and President Obama are taking the offensive, asking for sanctions in the form of attorney fees in two frivolous birther lawsuits, one in Tennessee and one in Florida.

Van R. Irion filed twin lawsuits in Tennessee and Arizona on behalf of the Liberty Legal Foundation and others. These are the usual birther lawsuits supplemented with two plaintiffs who are write-in candidates for President. In that case the Defendants (Democratic National Committee, Tennessee Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Chip Forrester) filed a motion for sanctions with the court under federal Rule 12(b). Judge S. Thomas Anderson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee court ruled:

…Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the claims in this case had no basis in law. Specifically, counsel for Plaintiffs reasonably should have known that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims…

The Court granted sanctions yesterday (August 24, 2012) in the form of reasonable attorney fees.

In Florida, attorney Larry Klayman re-filed his already dismissed lawsuit on behalf of Michael Voeltz, adding another cause of action, declaratory relief. Here too, the second lawsuit has drawn a motion for sanctions from Barack Obama through his attorney Mark Herron, brought under Florida statute 57.105.

Because much of Voeltz’ second lawsuit was already addressed by the Leon County Court, Defendants have a good argument that Voeltz should have known that the additional cause of action under the same allegations was equally frivolous. Herron concludes:

Wherefore, President Obama requests that the Court grant his motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions because the Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim and is not supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts alleged.

The motion was filed on August 21, 2012.

The birther lawsuit count stands today at 152. To date, defendants have largely had a free ride to entangle the President and the Democratic Party (and in many cases state officials) in frivolous lawsuits. I think it is time for them to take responsibility for their actions and for the courts to mete out some justice.

Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the U.S.A.: Dismissed

US District Court Judge S. Thomas Anderson ordered the case of Liberty Legal Foundation et al. v. National Democratic Party of the U.S.A, et al. dismissed this past Wednesday.

LLF attempted to keep Barack Obama off the November ballot in Tennessee because, they allege, he was not  a “natural born citizen.” The Defense moved for dismissal on several grounds.

The Court, as did I, noted the curious fact that the certificate of write-in candidacy filed by plaintiff Dummett was dated very recently (and introduced in a filing of supplemental authority that the Court has rejected): Judge Anderson wrote:

[T]he exhibit is curiously dated the day after Defendants filed their reply, giving the appearance that the certificate is a device to cure whatever standing problems Plaintiffs may have.

While it may be that opposition candidates have standing to contest the other candidates based on eligibility, the Court found that the Complaint failed to show that the two purported candidates were actually vying for votes in contest with Obama. Judge Anderson wrote:

Neither Plaintiff has alleged that he is a Tennessee political party’s nominee for the office, that his name will appear on the ballot for Tennessee’s general election in November, that he is campaigning in the state of Tennessee, that any registered voter in Tennessee intends to cast a vote for him, or that President Obama’s presence on the ballot will in any way injure either candidate’s campaign.39 In short, Plaintiffs Dummet (sic) and Volodarsky have not alleged that he is truly in competition with  President Obama for votes in Tennessee’s general election.

The Court also ruled that the other defendants lacked standing as well.

A twin lawsuit is filed in Arizona.

Read the decision below:

Continue Reading →

What’s up, Jack?

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:

Continue Reading →