Main Menu

Tag Archives | standing

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.

Help us Mitt Romney; you’re our only hope

This article is in my “only hope” series:

Yes, once again a birther puts forward a vain hope to dislodge the President through legal action, this time in the person of Montgomery Blair Sibley. The occasion is the rejection of his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in his case Sibley v. Obama. The Court declined to delve into the matter Sibley raised, saying as so many courts before have said (going all the way back to Phil Berg’s 2008 case), the birther lacks standing, and in this case: Sibley’s “‘self declaration as a write-in candidate’ does not confer Article III standing….”

The inference drawn by Sibley is that Mitt Romney, who was in every sense a real candidate with a specific personal stake in the outcome of the 2012 election, does have standing. So Sibley has issued a public letter to Mitt Romney (which saves him the 46 cents for a postage stamp I guess), putting forward various conspiracy theories about Barack Obama, saying that the federal judiciary has failed in their duty, and asking for a 30 minute interview with Romney in which to present his case. (I thought folks were only allotted 15 minutes of fame.)

There are several problems with Sibley’s scenario. Individual harm from the outcome of the election does not alone confer standing on a candidate; a further requirement is that the court have the power to redress the alleged wrong and no court has the power to remove the President; only the Congress may do that. Romney has more sense than to get involved with birther nuttery anyway and finally, Obama is eligible in the first place, something that is well established, fully certified, and plainly obvious to everyone except the birthers.

Taitz v. Sebelius dismissed

image

Not a leg to stand on

Orly lost another lawsuit, Taitz v. Sebelius, dismissed for lack of standing. Federal district judge R. Barklay Surrick in Pennsylvania provided us with an excellent education in the problems with birther lawsuits in his scholarly ruling in Berg v Obama et al and we see the same legal principles at play four years later in the November 20 ruling by federal district judge Jorge A. Solis. I mention the 2008 decision in Berg to point out that there is nothing whatever new after four years of birther litigation, and that birthers have every reason to know better than to file these frivolous actions.

In the instant case Orly Taitz alleges that she has been harmed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), but never figures out exactly how the people she was suing actually harmed her as an individual. In addition, her complaint throws in everything but the kitchen sink in terms of unrelated causes and alleged injuries, none of which involve any specific act of a defendant that harmed Orly Taitz personally.

Orly’s caseload is dwindling. Her Indiana case was lost and all that remains is a possible slap on the wrist for her publishing a court reporter recording in contravention of what Judge Reid considered an order prohibiting it. The Mississippi case is winding down with the last round of briefs due Friday before the inevitable dismissal; the big issue there is the possibility of a demand for costs from the defendants. Orly’s Kansas case is lost. The Judd case was tossed in California Federal Court and her California election challenge in state court challenge was tossed.

Read the decision in Taitz v. Sebelius:

Continue Reading →

Bivens and Bivens and Bivens, oh my!

A pair of related things is a coincidence: three is an article

A couple of things have been simmering for a while on the back burner here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. One of them is an occasional email exchange with Jerry Collette creator of the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit and pro se plaintiff in Collette v. Obama.  Jerry took me to task for not covering all of the causes of action in his Florida suit (my article: “The shotgun birther challenge”). Jerry wrote, and I’m confident he won’t mind me sharing this:

So, maybe a follow up on the complaint article:

  • negligence per se
  • bivens
  • standing in FL

The other nagging issue was a quote of the day I used a while back:

I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident of the United States at least fourteen years.

– Barack Obama
– Sworn statement (2007)

I recently needed to use that to contradict what a birther said (that Obama had never …) and I couldn’t find where it came from. I could remember seeing it, but not where. I looked high and low for days and just could not find it. Fortunately, a commenter here, Jamese777,  serendipitously mentioned it and provided a link. Whose name appears on that nomination form? Don Bivens, Arizona campaign chair for Barack Obama.

Now today another commenter provided a link to the Motion to Dismiss in the DC case of Montgomery Blair Sibley. What is in that document?

… this case largely embodies the same set of allegations [as other dismissed challenges of Obama’s eligibility], with the exception of the inclusion of a separate and apparently unrelated Bivens claim against the United States Marshals Service and two Deputy U.S. Marshal John Doe defendants.

Eric J. Soskin

I’ll leave Don Bivens to his own devices. This article is about the Bivens claim in Collette.

Continue Reading →

Reading Judge Carter

Judge David O. Carter

Judge David O. Carter

I’ve had a few days to think about the transcript from the October 5, 2009, hearing in Barnett v. Obama. I am not the first to try to figure out where Judge David O. Carter is leaning based on his comments during the hearing.

The bulk of the Judge’s questions related to two issues: the standing of the plaintiffs and the political process for removing a president. It seems to me that these two questions focus on the criteria under which Judge Carter may dismiss the case.

Judge Carter seems to be concerned with the question: if the plaintiffs are right that President Obama is not eligible, what is the mechanism under the Constitution through which their complaint is redressed? In his view, there most be some avenue for a citizen to seek redress for a legitimate complaint. Continue Reading →

My solution to the “standing” issue

Judge Milian

Judge Milian

A few moments ago, I wrote in response to richCares:

While it would be pleasing to me to see all 300 and something allegations in Kerchner v. Obama tried and branded false, no court is ever going to touch it.

All the courts are of one accord in rejecting these cases for lack of standing, etc. But there is ONE court that could  try the case, The People’s Court TV Show.

Who could resist Judge Marilyn Milian?

“We the People” can get their 30 minutes in court. Orly can bring a notebook full of Social Security Numbers. I’m sure the show producers know how to deal with hecklers in the audience. The whole country could watch the birther movement crumble under a few probing questions from Judge Milian.

I can hear her now: “”No sabes ni adobar la mentira…”

Sometimes I am truly brilliant!

333333 44444
5555555
6666666