The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
I have a sneaking suspicion that this will not be a disaster for Ms. Taitz. She is officially a martyr now and will become a quasi celebrity, with appearances on FOX, CNN, ABC and NBC Broadcast. She’ll get speaking fees, will write a book published by Regnery Press and battle Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachman for the title of craziest female Right Winger. She may even run for office, or at least get a spot on “Dancing With The Stars” and “Help, I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!” I’m actually working on a plot line for the Orly Taitz Reality Show proposal “Fighting The System.” It’s about a Dentist/Lawyer who each week repairs badly done dental work, while battling in court for damages for her patients. You all might say I’m selling out, but think of the money.
One could only hope not to have a client and or an attorney such as this……
Imported crazy!
The California Bar now has far more than the Chandra compliant to consider. In the final sentence of his order, Judge Land wrote:
“The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.”
The Judge thereby sent a message to the Bar, and it was not a message in a bottle.
Another interesting sidelight is footnote 11:
“The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U.S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today’s Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subsequently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation.”
Mike S., the rumor is that she may be on Joy Behar on HLN CNN Headline News tonight Tuesday Oct. 13.
If true, yet another Spindell prediction fulfilled!
It is interesting and relevant that Judge Land is a Bush 43 appointee, and I don’t think the GOP would want known its complicity, and/or conspiracy with the Pelosi-Dems to enable the Usurper’s ‘Presidency’. On the other hand, Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment. (And by McCain’s TV comments over the weekend, it looks like ‘12 now to be Palin/Pawlenty v. Clinton/yet to be determined.)
Mike S:
“and battle Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachman for the title of craziest female Right Winger.”
as a right winger I believe Ann Coulter has that title wrapped up tight. Although she uses it to sell her books and would elbow Orly out of the way to keep her spot front and center.
There’s something everyone needs to know about Obama…. My ex-wife’s family in the early 90’s went into business with World Wide Distributing of Drugs. My ex-brother-in-law and his wife’s brother Clyde O’Connor went into business in Florida with purchasing huge jets. My ex-brother-in-law went to a known “Combine” or “Shadow Government” law firm in Chicago and Obama while working as a alwyer assisted them with setting up their business. They had a lot to say about Obama first because of his name and that the Shadow Government group felt he was going places in politics for them as a TEAM MEMBER. They also mentioned that he wasn’t a US Citizen but that wouldn’t present any problems for them to coverup. This is the first time I mentioned this in a post but it’s real.
Meet the family:
Mexico drug plane used for US ‘rendition’ flights: report Sep 4, 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6QonBKKMo2gw1e3ql-xUcQEZbVg
Please note the CIA link as the family often bragged about being CIA assets. They started laundering money in the later 70’s for partly for CIA operations. They were also involved in Iran/Contra while I was still married. They said that being a CIA asset means they are protected even if they commit murder and having said this, everyone will eventually learn how many there have been.
Also don’t over look the TON’s or Cocaine in those huge bags and remember this has been going on since the early 90’s. Before this, the drugs targetted for Chicago were coming across the Texas border without being stopped. Shipments were coming in in Chiquita ships and picked up off shore in International waters and moved to either a ocean side residence or corruption protected port. Trucked across the border to then be split up and placed in a “Pepper Truck” and trucked to the Chicago area. Chicago receives a$100 million dollar shipment in Cocaine each and every week. The money is partially laundered into property using Big Banks who are part of this and other money is used for Black Ops supporting another White House Coup. This is similar to the Business Plot tried in 1933.
Obama has been found to OWN more than 130 properties in suspicious social security names. Everyone needs to realize that property is used as “payment” for services rendered. Obama according to the family is NOT a US Citizen and he is also a TEAM MEMBER in the Shadow Government. The family talked openly in 1996 about 911 starting a series of situations including the collapse of our ecomony.
Orly Taitz is a real hero for standing up to this crap. What will come out eventually will be the truth that Obama isn’t a US Citizen at all and also his involvement in the latest WH Coup. Bush is also involved according to the Family plus others.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Vince,
In today’s media world of so-called celebrity’s and “political experts” Orly’s next moves are easy to see. That I even know Kim Kardashian’s name and that she’s got a big ass, without ever seeing her or her picture, is an indication of how fame works. My guess is that this was Orly’s plan all the time and while she can’t run for President, Senator Taitz, from California wouldn’t be bad. Consider that their governor is a man with a great body, heavy German accent and was a miserable actor. If Orly moved to Texas, or South Carolina she’d be a lock.
Byron,
It’s Bachman over both of them. Why, because both of them are mainly in it for the money and the fame. Bachman really believes what she says.
Marty Didier,
You guys used the same lying tactics with Bill Clinton, financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. Clinton was a major coke dealer working out of an Arkansas airport and working with the CIA. Thanks for the heads up though, so we all can see where the next lying thrust comes from.
Marty Didier is a troll who has posted at the Turley site before. Everything he writes is unsupported by any facts or sources whatsoever. He has no proof. He has no credibility. We are happy to read and consider facts and argument at this blog, but unsubstantiated rumors and hearsay have a very short shelf life here.
I just wish Congress would pass a law banishing Orly Taitz and her high-pitched warbly voice from the public airwaves.
I bet no one has ever seen Orly’s birth certificate. She’s an alien for sure–but from a different planet!
Vince Treacy 1, October 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Another interesting sidelight is footnote 11:
“The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs.
*************************
If the death nail is not already in the general’s file this is the end of the career as this general has known it. Once a general (C))you are always subject to recall. Its kinda like herpes, once you get it, it may go in remission but it pops at the least undesirable time.
They are or may be forced to submit to any and all orders to go any place until the day that they die. No retirement in essence.
Marty Didier, you did not provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims. Your position amounts to nothing more than exceedingly sour grapes, now embittered by a $20k fine that will likely result in the disbarment of Orly Taitz.
You’re a kook. Admit it, or remain a delusional kook.
She’s so fined.
(doo-lang, doo-lang, doo-lang)
Jack writes “On the other hand, Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment.”
You enjoy the same delusion as Marty Didier, if only because “ejectment” is a Common Law term for civil action to recover title and possession of land, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with electoral politics and procedures.
Kookiness, Article II, is the new conservative platform after Article I: Not no gays/blacks/hispanics, not now how.
A life is there to be had, if you want it. The ones you and Marty have now are just plain dismal.
Convicted felon, disbarred former attorney, and now paralegal assistant and law clerk to Attorney Doctor Orly Taitz Esquire, Charles Edward Lincoln III weighs in on Judge Land’s decision with yet another use of the word “treason.”
QUOTE I would point out that in Cohens v. Virginia, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that for a court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction was “treason” to the constitution.
Judge Land has built his entire assault against Orly’s integrity based on the doctrine of abstention—that he has jurisdiction which he should ignore. The 11th Circuit Mindes case from 1971 specifically found constitutional questions regarding the military and the application of its rules were subject to Judicial challenge, yet Judge Land ignores the substance of the very precedent he cites.
Judge Land issued a 43 page order condemning Orly, for among other things, utilizing the Courts for political purposes, and yet he proposes to use the $20,000.00 he expects to obtain from Orly for what can only be called a political contribution to advance certain political positions and philosophical assertions within the army.
Judge Land is clearly utilizing his power under Rule 11 to attempt to sanction Orly for legitimate exercise of her First Amendment Right to Petition, and that of her clients. Post-judgment motions and an appeal will be filed—your readers can rest assured of that. Orly is exploring the possibility of a direct appeal or request for stay of judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, Judge Land’s abuse of his position just makes Orly more determined, angrier than ever.
Orly does feel that this is further evidence that the U.S. Judiciary is subject to political pressures analogous to her “memories of life in the former Soviet Union”, and those are her words because I have no such memories. UNQUOTE
Source: http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/charles-lincoln-comments-on-lands-sanction-order/
Written predictions™®: “Post-judgment motions and an appeal” will fail. The “direct appeal or request for stay of judgment” to the Supreme Court will fail.
The toast is done. Spread the butter and jelly, slice it, and serve it hot.
Orly Taitz got orally tazed …
Mr. Didier and Mr. Jack, to the extent that you have relied on Ms. Taitz’ press releases or what passes for legal analysis on worldnet daily and similar sites, you are at a distinct disadvantage. The truth is that all of Ms. Taitz’ pleadings, motions and legal memoranda have been either absurd, incompetent or, most often, both. I know because I have read them, as have many other lawyers. The outcome has been entirely predictable to members of the legal profession and to informed laypersons as well. That is why Ms. Taitz has been unable to find a single lawyer to serve as local counsel for any of her claims. Indeed, Judge Land waived the pro hac vice rule to enable her to appear in his court. She will properly be disciplined by the California bar and will likely have her license suspended. She has harmed not only the administration of justice but those of her clients who relied on her advice in good faith. And she has taken money from gullible, uneducated and frightened members of the public to finance her obsession. The fact that she is only now facing sanctions is a testament to the durability, fairness and patience of the federal judiciary.
The comments of her disbarred lawyer spokesperson, Charles Lincoln, are meaningless. He has nothing to lose and is likely supporting himself through Ms. Taitz. I have no doubt that he will encourage her to pursue all available appeals so that he can continue to ride the gravy train. But if she has a lick of sense, a big if, she will abandon this odyssey to nowhere and ante up the twenty grand.
correction to my post I meant Captain not General. Sorry (C)) should be CO= Commissioned Officer.
The turdberry is fine but not as good as a window based phone. I miss my MOTOQ.
Mr. Didier,
As you have already learned, crap and lies disguised as facts won’t fly very far here. Your lies about a so-called Shadow Government firm are almost laughable. It is time for you to depart with your tail between your legs. Say hi to Orly for us.
“Orly, we hardly knew ye ….”
Since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!
There is an embedded lie in Jack’s latest troll posting. He writes, “Since Obama’s maternal grandmother … unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii….” There is no proof offered for that statement, and it is false.
Obama was born at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States in 1961, the leading maternity hospital in Honolulu at the time, an institution named after Queen Kapi’olani. The parents were Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. The hospital furnished the information that is now in official Hawaiian birth records. That information was released by the State to two Honolulu newspapers in 1961, which reported Obama’s birth in their recent birth columns. Hawaiian officials have verified that the state’s records show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Jack asks “who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!” The answer is that Obama’s grandmother was not his “mother,” birther lies and innuendo and rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.
“who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!”
Jack,
If your father was a transexual man, who had the operation, then he’d really be your mother.
Mike S.,
I guess that would just make “Jack” another asshole baby and eligible to run for elected office. Heck, he could even be the Sct Justice.
Jack, on Oct. 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm wrote, “…Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment.”
In addition to the misuse of the term “ejectment” noted by James, this incoherent post shows even more ignorance of the Constitution and laws. If a President dies, resigns, or is removed by the sole powers of Impeachment and Removal vested in the House and the Senate, then the Vice President succeeds to the Office. After that, the law provides for succession by the Speaker of the House, the President pro tem of the Senate, and only then the Members of the Cabinet, in order of seniority, led by the Secretary of State. The statutory succession would apply only during the brief period until the Vice President is replaced under the Constitution.
Mike S:
“Bachman really believes what she says.”
have you ever read one of Coulters books?
Enjoy!
THE DAWG
No, No, people – Marty and John are right.
I know because one night about 25 years ago my ex-wife’s best friend’s chihuahua was barking at the door. She opened the door and her neighbour’s ex-husband’s cousin was standing there. He was holding this big purple suitcase. He handed it to her and then keeled over and dropped dead right on the doorstep.
Well, she didn’t know what was going on and the dog was barking like crazy. So she slammed the door shut and opened the suitcase. Inside was about 17 pounds of boiled cabbage and some beef jerky. The tag on the suitcase said “Property of Barack Hussein Obama” and there was a little picture of a Hitler moustache next to the name. She went to the kitchen and called the police, but when she came back she discovered that the damn dog had eaten the entire contents of the suitcase. (he made a huge mess later, but that’s another story).
So when the police came, half the evidence was eaten and all they had to go on was the dead body and the suitcase tag. The police checked out the dead body and it turned out the dead guy’s first wife’s mother was a nurse in Hawaii in 1961. They asked that woman about the name on the suitcase and she had never heard of any baby named Obama and she’s pretty sure she would have heard of him if he had ever existed. So that was the first clue.
About three days after the incident, my ex-wife’s best friend got a mysterious phone call from someone who called herself “Madge”. Madge was asking questions about the dead guy, like “do the police know who he is?” and “did his fingertips smell like Palmolive?” My ex-wife’s best friend hung up without saying anything, but later told her hairdresser’s accountant that “Madge” sounded a lot like Don Ho. Someone told me recently that Obama’s grandmother sounded a lot like Don Ho, so that was the second clue. It is also well documented that Obama’s grandmother had at least 65 Don Ho record albums and that listening to them made her feel a little…well… frisky. So, you know, she might be his mother, not his grandmother.
Anyway, the mystery was solved about 2 years later when my ex-wife and her best friend went to the store to buy some pineapple juice. A black man came up behind them and said “Pineapples are from Hawaii and so am I”. But the guy had a funny accent so they knew he was lying. “Really?”, my ex wife said, “Then you must know how long it takes for a pineapple to grow”. He suddenly looked very nervous and could not answer the question (which everyone, except people from Kenya, know is 18 months). Exposed as a non-citizen, he yelled at them “I did not ask that hospital to fake the birth certificate! It was Madge!”.
So putting all the clues together, it is obvious that Obama was not born in Hawaii but his grandmother, who may be his mother, got the hospital to fake the birth certificate.
I have never before revealed this information on a post, but I will certainly cooperate with the appropriate authorities (Bill O’Reilly) in any impeachment proceedings.
empirecookie–
That all sounds plausible to me. You should call Orly Taitz with this information. Here’s her telephone number: 1-800-CRA-KPOT.
This lady is bat shit crazy.
empirecookie,
Thanks for the tip and the laughs that went with it.
Empire,
I give it a 9 out of 10. You left out the Freemasons, who by the way killed Mozart.
“You left out the Freemasons, who by the way killed Mozart.”
Gyges,
There you go again a musician thinking only of himself and his needs.
Mozart had done it all musically by the time he died, it’s comparable to the death of Sid Viscious, early genius and then what.
Mike,
Honestly, I just like to bring up the Mozart thing. It’s my favorite tin-foil-hat club theory.
Gyges,
Musical illiterate that I am did you really think I’d call Sid Vicious a genius? He was the worst comparison I could think of to try to cover your contretemps re: the Freemasons killing Mozart.
They were innocent, it was the Prieure De Sion that did it and framed them.
Mike,
Sid was a genius at being angry. It takes a lot of talent to be that angry with that amount of consistency without becoming a clown (see Glen Beck).
“This lady is bat shit crazy.”
Seamus,
Are you referring to Orly or to me? Think carefully before you answer. Hillary and I are closer than sisters and, if you are referring to me, she will do to you what she did to Vince Foster.
empire cookie, yours is one of the funniest conspiracy stories I’ve ever read, unless it’s really true.
Oh, it’s true all right. I still have the suitcase:
http://www.craftychica.com/blogs/projects/uploaded_images/suitcase-791041.jpg
Was the $20K fine enough? Maybe when Taitz becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present facts. Birthers hate and can’t debate.
Mike S. and Gyges,
You guys have it so wrong – this is clearly all an Illuminati plot: The Freemasons are just a front for the Illuminati (non-withstanding the fact that the Illuminati were founded by Freemasons), and they didn’t kill Mozart, they faked his death (Mozart is still alive thanks to an immortality serum developed by scientists in Atlantis). Empirecookie is, in fact, an Illuminati agent planting a story which is an elaborate lie formed around a kernel of truth so as to distract you from a closer examination of the ‘death’ of Mozart. I expected better from the two of you…
Vince,
While watching Dr. Orly pull out a copy of Vattel on the Joy Behar Show, I found myself wishing that you were the one conducting the interview to debunk the birther’s favorite reference on national TV.
Empire,
Where does Howard Hughes fit into this conspiracy?? I just know that he was involved somehow. I know because I saw it in his will when I wrote it for him.
Poor little Birthers, no court cases won (based on lies and hate), no one with a brain and common sense take you seriously, except maybe “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme, unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (Prepare for more failures). When flies get too close to the lights they get burned, Taitz just got burned, thing is, like a fly she will continue, no end in sight. Poor little Birthers they are haters not debaters.
A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, wow I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.
Empirecookie:
Are you certain it was a Chihuahua? The dog’s name was Bobalouie. And although he was never officially deposed, Uncle Louie was consistent when he told this tale to the pack.
Bo knows much more than where the bones are buried.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/hi_res/bo_running_hi-res.jpg
seamus–
Don’t go around giving bat shit a bad name. Guano’s good stuff!
empire:
Please please please confirm for us the rumor that Marty Didier is really the Nigerian bank executive who contacted me recently, requesting use of my bank account to remove funds from his home country. And since Nigeria and Kenya are so close, that must prove that, you know, Obama’s a Kenyan who is also an internet bank scam artist. Marty Didier’s live-in lover is Capt. Jack Off, the Air Force guy who listed his Toyota Tacoma on Craigslist and will gladly sell it to me if I send the cash first so that he can pay for the shipping charges from Great Britain where it obviously can’t be sold because, you know, they drive on the wrong side of the road. I believe that Capt. Off was also the first to break the news that Obama was often seen at mosques in Britain, where he attended services because there are a LOT of Nigerians who emigrated to Britain.
And please confirm: Obama and Ben AFflect are related, right?
Doctor Bill Frist thinks of the birthers as “patients” in need of communication.
It might help those patients if he would just come out and say that Obama was born in the United States and is a natural born citizen, instead of bobbing and weaving.
Just say it, Doctor.
From Huffington Post:
[quote]
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attempted to skirt a question on Thursday as to why nearly half the Republicans in his home state of Tennessee believed that President Barack Obama was born in another country. But in an admission that the birthers are becoming problematic for the GOP, the senator stressed that there was a need to reach out and educate those individuals, so as to rebuild the party’s brand on modern ideas as opposed to conspiracy theories.
Speaking at a conference in Washington D.C., the Huffington Post asked the former Senator about a recent survey which showed 47 percent of Tennessee Republicans and 34 percent of the entire state thought Obama was constitutionally ineligible to hold office.
Frist replied that there was a need to have “good people [in Washington] get facts out, explain to people, communicate with people, get rid of… a certain arrogance, and listen to real people on the ground.”
“When a patient comes in I don’t care where they are from or how much money they have. I spend the time and communicate,” Frist, a doctor, concluded. “I listen to them and get a more educated populace out there.”
After the event concluded, he told the Huffington Post that there was an onus on elected Republican leaders in Washington to reach out and calm some of the more extreme elements of the party.
Frist’s comments are another small reflection of a growing recognition among senior voices in the GOP that the inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories directed at the Obama White House are likely not constructive. Earlier in the month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the birthers “crazy” and told them to “knock [the] crap off.” This past week, the South Carolina Republican was shouted down by town hall protesters for his position on climate change legislation.
“We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys,” Graham responded. “If you don’t like it, you can leave.”
While Frist may see similar demographic problems ahead for the GOP, he pledged on Thursday that he would not be returning to elected office to help the party right the ship.
“I’m not running for governor, vice president, president, any of the cabinet positions. I’ll just get that out of the way,” he said, at the onset of the conference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/frist-addresses-tennessee_n_323639.html
Yet another birther lawsuit dismissed, an unbroken losing streak. This time it was Mario Apuzzi’s case in New Jersey:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, a person must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the office of President of the United States. Four individuals, believing that President Barack Obama is not eligible for his office on this ground, have filed suit seeking a court order to require various officials to look into their claims and to remove the President from office. Plaintiffs present various arguments for defining the term “natural born citizen” accompanied by allegations of how President Obama does not meet their definition. This matter is presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss [Docket Item 27] submitted by Defendants President Barack Obama, the United States of America, the United States Congress, the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, former Vice-President and President of the Senate Richard Cheney, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons expressed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
Plaintiffs’ claims, as set forth in their Second Amended Complaint, arise from allegations that President Obama has 1 failed to sufficiently prove that he is a “natural born citizen” [1] eligible for the presidency and that the legislative branch has failed to sufficiently investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth. Plaintiffs all voted in the November 4, 2008 general election for president. (Second Am. Compl. 8-11.) Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen both took oaths to defend and support the Constitution of the United States — Mr. Kerchner as part of his thirty-three years of service in the U.S. Naval Reserves and Mr. Nelsen as a former member of the Marine Reserves and Army National Guard. (Id. 8, 11.) In addition, Mr. Kerchner states that his is particularly harmed by the alleged uncertainty surrounding President Obama’s birthplace because “while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in extreme national emergency” Mr. Kerchner might be recalled. (Id. 8.)
Plaintiffs claim violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth Amendments of the Constitution and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of mandamus and quo warranto. In Court I, Plaintiff Kerchner alleges that the Congressional Defendants violated his First Amendment right to petition because they ignored his requests that they investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth. (Id. 200-214.) In Counts II and X, Plaintiffs allege that the Congressional Defendants violated their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights and their rights under the Twentieth Amendment by failing to conduct an appropriate investigation and hold a hearing regarding President Obama’s place of birth. (Id. 215-234, 329-356.) In Counts III and IV, Plaintiffs allege that President Obama violated their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by holding the office of president without proving that he is a “natural born citizen” and that the Congressional Defendants violated these same rights by permitting President Obama to occupy the office and by failing to adequately confirm that his is a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 235-270.) In Count V, Plaintiffs allege that the Congressional Defendants violated their Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by submitting to the requests of citizens who requested a hearing regarding Senator John McCain’s place of birth and citizenship, but declining a similar request from Plaintiffs and other citizens regarding President Obama. (Id. 271-282.) In Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX, Plaintiffs assert their rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to compel President Obama to prove that his is a “natural born citizen” and to compel the Congressional Defendants to conduct appropriate congressional hearings under the Twentieth Amendment to determine whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 283-328.) In Count XI, Plaintiffs seeks a writ quo warranto removing and excluding President Obama from the office of President of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 357-380.) Finally, in Count XII, Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment against all Defendants defining “natural born citizen,” and compelling the Congressional Defendants to hold a congressional hearing on the question and to remove President Obama from office if they determine he is not a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 381-387.)
The harm alleged for all of these constitutional violations is that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to know whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen” and to have a president who is truly a “natural born citizen.” [2] (Id. 208, 233, 251, 269, 282, 291, 302, 314, 325, 356, 377, 378.)
B. Procedural History
On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaints, which they subsequently amended twice. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2009. On June 26, 2009, Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss, in which they argue that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing as well as prudential standing to bring all of these claims before the Court. Defendants argue in the alternative that the United States, the United States Congress, and former Vice-President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi in their official capacities, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi [2] are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. A determination of proper subject matter jurisdiction is vital, because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction voids any decree entered in a federal court and the continuation of litigation in a federal court without jurisdiction would be futile.” Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987). An attack on subject matter jurisdiction can be either facial — based solely on the allegations in the complaint — or factual — looking beyond the allegations to attack
jurisdiction in fact. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Id.
B. Article III Standing
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.
An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson, [3] 418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633 (1937). As the Court explained in Schlesinger,
We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties’ treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.
418 U.S. at 221. Consequently, “a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
In the present case, assuming as the Court must that Plaintiffs’ allegations are true for the purposes of deciding this jurisdictional motion, the injury, if any, suffered by Plaintiffs is one that would be shared by all the American people. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured because Defendants have not adequately established that the President is truly a “natural born citizen” and because, according to Plaintiffs, President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore an illegitimate president. These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people.” [4] As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
In an effort to distinguish themselves from the rest of the citizenry, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen have both taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. They also suggest that they feel more threatened by the alleged uncertainty surround President Obama’s place of birth and citizenship than many citizens. While the Court accepts that Plaintiffs are more concerned about President Obama’s birthplace
[4] than many citizens and that they likewise feel a greater sense of obligation to bring the present action, Plaintiffs’ motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. Plaintiffs state that they have been injured because President Obama’s birthplace and citizenship have not been established to their satisfaction; this harm is equally applicable to all American citizens. Finally, Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” (Second Am. Compl. 8.) While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing. See Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 297 (3d Cir. 2003) (an allegation of potential future property loss, should a municipality disallow a present non-conforming use, cannot demonstrate injury in fact for standing purposes because it is conjectural). Without an “injury in fact” necessary for Article III standing, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present action. [5]
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The accompanying Order shall be entered.
October 20, 2009 s/ Jerome B. Simandle
Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge
[1] The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint in conformance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P., and further whether that complaint is a short and plain statement required under Rule 8(a)(2). The Court will address the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, notwithstanding that it was filed without leave of Court on February 9, 2009. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims, the Court will not address the procedural disputes, and Plaintiffs’ belated motion for leave to assert the Second Amended Complaint on July 22, 2009, will be dismissed as moot.
[2] To the extent Plaintiffs also allege that they were injured merely by the government’s failure to respond to their petitions requesting investigations and hearings, this is not a cognizable constitutional injury. Plaintiffs “have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views.” Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 284-85 (1984). As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals’ communications on public issues.” Id. (citing Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,
464-466 (1979)).
[3] Plaintiffs cite a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), for the proposition that there are exceptions to the standing requirement at issue here. The Court wishes to clarify that Plaintiffs are asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction and consequently the various state court jurisdictional doctrines are inapplicable to this case.
[4] By way of example, Plaintiffs’ complaint outlines the various failures to adequately establish President Obama’s place of birth “on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People.” (Second Am. Compl. 84-188.) Plaintiffs identify the “Irreparable Harm” to be suffered as follows: “If Obama is sworn in as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, there will be substantial and irreparable harm to the stability of the United States, its people, and the plaintiffs.”
[5] Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982). Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote. To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.
Source: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/
Orly’s appeal from the sanctions imposed by Judge Land: It was a “political lynching.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21367912/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-29-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-29-0
It would appear that Attorney Dentist Orly Taitz Esquire may have possibly seemed to have disagreed somewhat in some small manner to something or other in the tenor or tone of the Order by Judge Land imposing the $20,000.00 fine:
“Judge Land’s actions that amounted to misstating or misrepresenting ninety percent of what was presented in the pleadings and argument, completely ignoring ninety percent of the argument and facts, making extremely rude and demeaning remarks, showing bias; taken together, appear to be designed to silence her and, intimidate her and above all, punish her for what the Court perceived as political rather than “core” constitutional questions. It appears to be a thinly veiled threat to other attorneys not to pursue similar Constitutional issues, which will have a chilling effect on the ability of the public to use Federal Court system to uphold their constitutional rights. Judge Land’s remarks amounted to nothing short of political lynching, which turned into feast and celebration by the media mob.”
A delicious feast and celebration at that. Please pass the tooth picks.
Orly you
can make this world seem right
Orly you
can make the darkness bright
Orly you and you alone
can thrill me like you do
and fill my heart with love for Orly you
Orly you
can make this change in me
For it’s true
you are my destiny
When you hold my hand, I understand
the magic that you do
You’re my dream come true
my one and Orly you, Orly you
Orly you and you alone
can thrill me like you do
and fill my heart with love for Orly you
Orly you
can make this change in me
For it’s true
you are my destiny
When you hold my hand, I understand
the magic that you do
You’re my dream come true
my one and Orly you (one and Orly you)
Why the obsession with Orly Taitz?
Why the hate speech towards Orly Taitz?
Why the distraction away from Barack Hussein Obama II?
Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?
Shame be upon you and may a pox be upon your house.
borderraven,
Why the obsession with Orly Taitz?
Because she’s extremely entertaining.
Why the hate speech towards Orly Taitz?
I’m not sure what you mean by hate speech – certainly we make fun of her, but I don’t think any of it is hateful (as opposed to her nervous tick of mouthing off to judges…).
Why the distraction away from Barack Hussein Obama II?
That would be President Barack Hussein Obama II. I certainly haven’t been distracted from following our president by this amusing diversion. I just focus on his actions and policies rather than a mistaken belief that he’s not eligible for the office he holds.
Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?
Um, did you even look at who’s blog you’re posting on? If you had read the articles and comments on this blog you would know that not only is Professor Turley one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country, but the level of knowledge about the law in general and the constitution in particular is extremely high (although admittedly I’m bringing down the average…). To accuse people like Professor Turley and Vince Treacy (just to name one) of being ignorant of the constitution is a stunning and ridiculous display of ignorance in and of itself.
Shame be upon you and may a pox be upon your house.
There is no shame in shining a light on constitutional issues and providing a forum for ernest and civilized debate, nor for taking part in that debate. I’m sorry that your narrow-minded paranoia makes you see enemies here, but the only shame here is what you brought with you.
borderraven: “Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?”
To which provisions of the Constitution does this ignorance apply?
If you have any specific provisions that we have ignored, why not point them out and give us a chance to look into them and see if there is any merit to your contentions? We will be glad to look them up, take a look at the history and the court cases, and discuss them.
Appeal filed in Obama eligibility argument
‘Court cannot refuse to hear a case because it prefers not’
Posted: October 27, 2009
8:43 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president has been sent on appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
WND previously reported when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
The case asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”
(Story continues below)
The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,” the case explained.
The attorney now has posted online a notice of his appeal to the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.
“Through his dismissal, Judge Simandle avoided having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible for the office of president and commander in chief,” Apuzzo said.
“We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”
The lawyer said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.
It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue.
“By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief,” the attorney said.
“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications,” he continued. “The court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen.’
“The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ which would make him eligible to be president,” the attorney said.
WND had reported only days earlier when Kerchner publicly argued that the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama’s eligibility.
He wrote, “The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.”
He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:
“It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Kerchner added, “The … judges in the … cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
WND has reported on another case, being heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. He released a ruling noting the government’s motion to dismiss was being taken “under submission.” But he also approved a final calendar for the case to be proceeding in his court.
Under the schedule ordered by the judge the final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Art Bulla,
You are late to this party. If you read through all of the past posts on this thread you will realize that all you say has already been disproven. Oh wait, I’m sorry. you’re not the reading type are you? More like another troll on the make. your presences here is merely to keep a moronic idea going and to fuel your own hatred and stupidity. Have a nice day.
Art has just put up another troll posting, simply pasting up a Worst Nut Daily article.
The only “news” is that Mario Apussi has filed a notice of appeal in the case that was dismissed, above at Oct. 21, 2009 12:07 pm.
That is all.
The Nut article is full of discredited information.
Just for one, 2d para from last: “The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.”
This is an outright lie. It is repeated in EVERY Nut article. It is false. A law that was passed in 1982, but that was not on the books in 1961, allows Hawaiian parents, like those who have adopted children, to obtain an Hawaiian birth certificate for use for drivers’ licenses and all other purposes.
But those certificates can only list the true place of birth. They cannot list birth in Hawaii. The Hawaiian official have explained this.
So Art the troll has repeated a lie. But do not expect anyone to admit this.
Mike S. and Vince,
Good work and exposing Art’s true colors. Facts are a very messy problem for trolls so they just don’t bother with them.
This is not a “party, but a lynching. The left now are racist against honorable, upright white individuals, and the left being traitors to their race, the Constitution, and the heavens, crucify the Lord afresh by proxy in their wickedness and corruption, being Darwinists there is no absolute truth at all with them, they vilify without being moored in reality at all:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Rom 1:28-32)
The left lie without let, their consciences being seared with a hot iron. A certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate. Persons were able to get a certificate of live birth solely upon the testimony of one parent. In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States. At the time of Barrack Obama’s birth, his father was a citizen of the British Empire. Therefore even if he was born in Hawaii (which the ambassador to Kenya says is not true, there being a monument erected in Kenya to his birth, and to which his grandmother testifies as being an eyewitness: that he was born in Kenya) he still would not qualify as being “natural born” since BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. So whom should the people believe? Perverted leftists such as yourselves, whose politics are driven by your sexual depravity, constant liars, or our lying eyes and ears?
The whole birther movement God’s gift to Obama, cause if they weren’t obsessing on that, it would be something else. So let ‘em go. I hope they keep at until their puny little brains overload and they have to be chemically lobotomized.
Alan,
Are you Formerly Known as Bdaman?
@AY: Not that I’m aware of
Art,
While you are clearly a hate filled troll spewing lies either intentionally or out of ignorance, I thought I would reply to your vile little screed anyway.
You said:
“This is not a “party, but a lynching. The left now are racist against honorable, upright white individuals, and the left being traitors to their race, the Constitution, and the heavens, crucify the Lord afresh by proxy in their wickedness and corruption, being Darwinists there is no absolute truth at all with them, they vilify without being moored in reality at all:”
I’m not sure who you are quoting here (or, in fact, what comprises the quote here since there is no close quote), so I’ll just assume you’re saying it all. Your comment about the left being traitors to their race implies that the left is only comprised of white people which seem to whiff of more than a little hypocrisy to me – certainly not the last time you commit this transgression.
I’m not sure what the point of the rest of your rant and the bible verse is about, but I’m a scientist who is aware of the fact that evolution is the best theory at explaining the scientific data and that there are no competing scientific theories at all – if you think that makes me a ‘Darwinist’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) fine, I really don’t care about the labels you want to put on me in your sad, little mind. As for the bible verse, I will give weight in a legal discussion to you quoting bible verses when you either prove to me that you have never worn clothing made from two different fabrics or let yourself be stoned (and not in the good way…) and until then, I’ll just ignore it.
You said:
“The left lie without let, their consciences being seared with a hot iron.”
I’m always impressed at how people of your ilk try to paint the opposition with their own sins.
“A certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate.”
No, but it is prima facia evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii. (And the only such evidence generally available from the Hawaii DOH.)
“Persons were able to get a certificate of live birth solely upon the testimony of one parent.”
Maybe, so what?
“In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States.”
This sentence has some serious problems both in fact and in structure. I’ll leave figuring out why this is a bad sentence structurally to you, but as Vince (and others) have painstakingly pointed out in this thread and its predecessors, the definition of ‘natural born’ at the time of the Constitution came from English common law and required only birth on native soil, regardless of parentage. The SCOTUS has never clarified the definition (although it’s rulings clearly support the English common law definition over your (or de Vattel’s) definition).
“At the time of Barrack Obama’s birth, his father was a citizen of the British Empire.”
Yes, so what?
“Therefore even if he was born in Hawaii (which the ambassador to Kenya says is not true, there being a monument erected in Kenya to his birth, and to which his grandmother testifies as being an eyewitness: that he was born in Kenya) he still would not qualify as being “natural born” since BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.”
This sentence is just not true (see the entire above thread and two or three of its predecessors and pay special attention to posts by Vince Treacy if you are interested in why this is so). As for the parenthetical comment, I’m unaware of what statement by the ambassador to Kenya you are referring to, but I’ll bet that Vince could debunk it in under 5 minutes if he wanted to, but if you listen to the unedited version of the interview (and understand Luo) with President Obama’s grandmother (actually not his grandmother but the wife of his grandfather, I believe) you will hear her correct this misunderstanding and say he was born in Hawaii.
“So whom should the people believe? Perverted leftists such as yourselves, whose politics are driven by your sexual depravity, constant liars, or our lying eyes and ears?”
Well, after reading all of the posts in this thread and its predecessors, following most of the links to sites supporting both sides of the argument it seems crystal clear to me that any rational person should believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to hold the office of POTUS. I don’t really care about what perverted sexually deviant activities you engage in (as long as they’re between consenting adults or inanimate objects) and you can’t hardly write a sentence without at least one lie in it, so I’ll believe what my eyes, ears, and reasoning ability tell me to be true and not the toxic bile that you and WND spew.
What you and all of your birther friends should understand is that even if we somehow stumble into some alternate reality and one of these cases proceeds to trial (and I believe Vince’s written predictions (I don’t know how to do the trademark thingy, sorry) of ‘case dismissed’ on this matter) the first thing that would likely happen is judicial recognition of the COLB or statements by Hawaii DOH officials, thus officially establishing President Obama’s birth in Hawaii and if you’re really lucky the court will also establish the English common law definition of natural born citizen as the correct one. So no matter how things proceed from this point on, the only thing you and your ilk have in store is bitter disappointment because fortunately our judges uphold the Constitution and understand the law, the only question is will any case actually pass the hurdles of standing and justicability (sp? – I sympathize with Judge Carter) to lose based on the evidence and arguments? I suspect even this is too much to ask of legal luminaries like Orly Taitz and friends – although I would love to see Orly argue this case (I can just imagine the drinking game – drink whenever Orly calls someone a traitor (double for the judge), drink when she insults co-counsel, finish the bottle when she’s fined…). Now unless you have anything substantive to add to the conversation (which it’s pretty clear you don’t – or you’re hiding it very, very well), would you please stop waving your ignorance all over.
Everyone else,
Sorry about feeding the troll, but he seemed to need a beat down and after months of following the debate over health care reform, I’ve lost my patience for fools…
Art Bulla,
You have committed the mortal sin of blasphemy by taking the name of the Lord in vain, by using the bible to make a political statement. You have also put other God’s before the Lord in putting the Conservative Movement on the same level as God’s Holy Books. You are a blasphemer also because you misinterpret those books for a political (Caesar’s)purpose.
Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s, render up to the Lord that which is God’s.” You have rendered unto Caesar that which is the Lord’s. You have sinned and I sincerely pray for your repentence, lest you spend all of eternity as damned.
Good work, Mike and Slart.
Art said: “In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States.”
That is a lie.
There is no requirement ANYWHERE in the Constitution that says a President must have both parents born in the United States, or that both parents must be citizens.
If Art Bulla can find anything in the Constitution, let it be posted here. It is going to be a long wait. There is NOTHING in the text of the Constitution that supports that position. Is Bulla claiming that the parents must not only be citizens, but also natural born citizens, themselves? It is doubtful whether Bulla even thought about that point. The ignorance of the Constitution is monumental.
No Supreme Court case or any other case has ever said that. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark ruled that babies born in the United States to alien parents are citizens from birth, and are just as much citizens as the children of United States citizens.
This is a legal blog run by a Constitutional Law Professor, so false statements about the Constitution do not survive very long here.
Art Bulla has no basis for these statements.
Orly Taitz dissed again! Government defendant’s Motion to Dismiss granted. Case dismissed.
Eat your hearts out, birhers:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack H. Obama, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx)
O R D E R REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants President Barack H. Obama (“Obama” or “President”), Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (“Clinton”), Joseph Biden (“Biden”), and Robert Gates’ (“Gates”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. After considering the moving, opposing, reply, and sur-reply papers, as well as the parties’ oral argument, the Court hereby rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
On January 20, 2009, the day on which Barack Obama was sworn in as President and took office, Plaintiffs brought this suit. The action was filed at 3:26 p.m. Pacific standard time, following President Obama’s formal assumption of office. The suit alleges, in pertinent part, that President Obama does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the President, as specified by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a “natural born citizen” of the UnitedStates and assert that he should have to establish his citizenship by “clear-and-convincing evidence.” Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that, even if the President was a natural born citizen, he abandoned his citizenship while living in Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States citizenship. Plaintiffs are third party candidates from the American Independent Party for president and vice president in the 2008 presidential election, inactive and active military personnel, and state representatives. The third party candidate plaintiffs are Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Reverend Wiley Drake. Keyes and Drake received a total of four-hundredth of one percent of the popular vote for President.
Because Plaintiffs failed to bring their claims in this Court until after President Obama was sworn into office, the Court has been presented with much more than an action against a political candidate asking the Court to interpret the candidate’s qualifications to run for office. Instead, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that the current President of the United States is illegitimate and fails to meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants challenge the ability of the Court to hear Plaintiffs’ claims and redress their alleged injuries through the removal of the sitting President.
B. First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs have since filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), which adds to the original complaint and which is the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that declaratory judgment is proper pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988. First Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 60, July 14, 2009. Plaintiffs’ Complaint sets forth ten questions for which they request declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Id. ¶¶ 11-21. The questions all relate to the meaning of the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause and the appropriate recourse should a sitting president not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement.
Plaintiffs frame these questions as seeking “an answer to the simple question of constitutional qualifications . . . [and seeking] a declaratory judgment confirming their fundamental civil or constitutional right to ask and know the constitutional qualifications of any person elected or appointed to public office in the United States of America.” Id. 3:8-12. Beyond this “simple question,” however, Plaintiffs make a significantly more expansive request. Plaintiffs seek “injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants [the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President] to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force, as well as the appointment of judges or justices and the ratification or modification of treaties during the pendency of this lawsuit until and unless Defendant Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications are established in this court by clear-and-convincing evidence.” Id. 3:13-22. In other words, Plaintiffs do not propose succession by Vice President Biden but instead seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election.
Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the production of documents pursuant to FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 60-109. Plaintiffs further allege a violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988(a). Id. ¶¶ 110-122. Finally, Plaintiffs make a request for a writ quo warranto, in which Plaintiffs state, “This Court has the power to order Barack Hussein Obama to appear and to show cause all the relief sought by this complaint should not be upheld (or entered) against him.” Id. ¶ 121; see also id. 4:3-19. The prayer for relief states the resolution sought in the action as:
This Court should issue an order to Barack Hussein Obama to show cause why the full measure of relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this case should not be granted, and should in particular order that the contours of the final judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), including the extension or modification of common and statutory law to protect the civil rights of the people of the United States to demand clear and- convincing evidence of the constitutional qualifications, elegibility [sic], and competence of their elected (as well as their non-elected [sic]) officials, representatives, and executive agents.
Id. ¶ 126.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. Once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.”). Accordingly, the Court will presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise in response to the motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673 (1994).
Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action on five bases: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing; (2) the issues in this action present non-justiciable political questions; (3) this Court is not the appropriate forum for Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims; (4) this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; and (5) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to their Freedom of Information Act claims and all claims against Defendants Clinton, Gates, Michelle Obama, and Biden.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court must establish that it has jurisdiction before it may reach the question of interpreting the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. “[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S. Ct. 466 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring) (citing Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191, 29 S. Ct. 451 (1909); Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538, 31 S. Ct. 485 (1911)).
A. Jurisdiction Under Article III
Rule 12(b)(1) mandates that the Court dismiss claims for which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,” meaning that the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” and (b) “‘actual or imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical;’” (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court;’” (3) “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Each element of standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” and accordingly “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
The caption of the Complaint in this matter lists forty-four (44) plaintiffs. The Complaint does not individually identify the bases for standing for each of these plaintiffs, but alleges generally, “The Plaintiffs are all American citizens, the majority with military service backgrounds (retired or inactive but subject to recall), a number of former and possible or prospective political candidates, including a number of state legislators and third-party candidates for President and Vice-President.” Compl. 3:5-8.
Plaintiffs are comprised of six groups which claim standing: (a) active military personnel; (b) former military personnel; (c) state representatives; (d) federal taxpayers; (e) relatives of President Obama; and (f) political candidates. The Complaint identifies eleven plaintiffs who fall within these groups. Thirty-two of the named plaintiffs are not identified in the Complaint with any particularity. The Court must assume that the remainder of the plaintiffs fall into one of the aforementioned six categories.
The majority of Plaintiffs are addressed through the first prong of Article III standing, which requires that Plaintiffs demonstrate the “invasion of a legally protected interest” which is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
a. Active Military Personnel
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Lieutenant Jason Freese (“Lieutenant Freese”) has standing because he is on active military duty in Alaska. Compl. ¶ 6. The Complaint states that, because Lieutenant Freese is on active military duty, he has standing “to challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof of the constitutional qualifications of the Commander-in-Chief and the legality of the current chain of command.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that Lieutenant Freese’s standing stems from the oath that military officers are required to take in which they swear to support and defend the Constitution. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 9:12-13:19. The oath that all military personnel take when enlisting in the military states as follows:
I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. 10 U.S.C. § 502.
Plaintiffs rely primarily on Board of Education v. Allen for their argument that Plaintiff has standing as an oath taker. 392 U.S. 236, 88 S. Ct. 1923 (1968). In Allen, Plaintiffs who were serving on the Board of Education took an oath in which they pledged to uphold the Constitution. Id. at 241 n.5. Plaintiffs alleged that if pursuant to that oath they refused to follow a law requiring them to lend books to parochial schools on the basis that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then they would face the injury of likely being expelled from office and having state funds to their school district reduced. Id. While the issue of standing was not before the Court, the Court observed in a footnote that it had no doubt that the plaintiffs had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation. Id. Plaintiffs argue that this action is similar to Allen because Lieutenant Freese has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and if pursuant to that oath he refused to follow the orders of President Obama on the basis that all orders from the President are unconstitutional because he does not satisfy the natural born citizen clause, then Freese would face the injury of likely disciplinary action within the military.
The footnote regarding standing in Allen is not binding Supreme Court precedent. In addition, the Supreme Court has significantly tightened standing requirements subsequent to the Allen ruling. City of South Lake Tahoe v. Calif. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 236 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the reasoning of the footnote in Allen on the basis that the real source of an oath taker’s complaint is not sufficiently concrete to establish standing. The Ninth Circuit, discussing the standing of oath takers to bring an action for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of an action, reasoned that oath takers hold merely an abstract objection to an unconstitutional act because they generally face only an abstract injury should they choose to object to the act. Id. at 237. The Court found that the oath takers’ objection was insufficient to invoke standing because “the difficulty with abstract constitutional grievances is that they lack the specificity and adversarial coloration that transmute vague notions of constitutional principle into a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Id. at 237-38 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Pursuant to the reasoning under South Lake Tahoe, Plaintiff Lieutenant Freese fails to establish standing based on his military oath because his injuries are not sufficiently concrete to establish Article III standing.
The Complaint also requests that this Court enjoin the President’s “powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force.” Compl. 3:14-19. This “cut and run” call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an effort by Plaintiffs to emasculate the military.
Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94, 73 S. Ct. 534 (1953) (“[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.”). Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin acts that the President takes as Commander-in-Chief internationally, not domestically. This peculiarity leads the Court to suspect that the constitutional objection is being used as a veil to avoid deployment to countries where the United States military is currently active, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. See Rhodes v. Thomas D. MacDonald et al., No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), 2007 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (Plaintiff objecting to President Obama’s natural born citizen status “had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September 2009”). Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Plaintiff Freese fails to meet the Article III standing requirements.
b. Former Military Personnel
The Complaint states that all inactive or retired military personnel “have standing to challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof . . . [because] they are subject to recall and service at any time under and subject to the de facto chain of command.” Compl. ¶ 7. In order for Article III standing to be met, the Supreme Court requires that the injury be “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’” and that the injury must be likely, not merely speculative. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (citations omitted). Currently, Plaintiffs are inactive in the military and therefore are not subject to any orders from the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama. Therefore, Plaintiffs base their standing on the possibility that they could be called back to service at any time and would at that point have to follow the Commander-in-Chief’s orders. Plaintiffs argue that following such orders would be injurious because they would have to follow the commands of someone who does not meet the requirements to hold the position of Commander-in-Chief. However, the chance that Plaintiffs would be called back to active duty fails to meet the requirement that the injury not be merely hypothetical or speculative. Whether or not Plaintiffs will be called back to active duty depends on future unknown events, and is thereby both hypothetical and speculative. See Bates v. Rumsfeld, 271 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D. D.C. 2002) (where plaintiff challenging the military’s policy of forcing personnel to receive anthrax vaccine was no longer on active duty and the vaccine was only being administered to select units, plaintiff did not meet requirement that injury be concrete and actual or imminent). As such, inactive or former military personnel fail to meet the Article III standing requirements.
c. State Representatives
The Complaint additionally identifies a group of “Plaintiff State Representatives” as having “unique standing.” Compl. ¶ 8. While the Complaint does not specifically identify these representatives serving in the state government, from the caption of the Complaint it appears they are Tennessee Representative Glen Casada; New Hampshire Representative Timothy Comerford; Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis; Missouri Representative Timothy Jones; Tennessee Representative Frank Niceley; and Tennessee Representative Eric Swafford (collectively, the “State Representatives”).
The Complaint alleges that the State Representatives have “a special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.” Id. Defendants argue that this allegation is “wholly insufficient to constitute injury-in-fact” because it is “neither actual or imminent” and is “highly speculative.” Mot. 8:13-14. Morever, Defendants assert that the allegation fails to “withstand any logical scrutiny” because the causes of action of theft and conversion require intent. Id. Since Plaintiffs state that they do not know with certainty that President Obama was not born in the United States, they do not have the requisite intent to be held liable for theft or conversion. Id. 8:8-21. In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they could be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion against these representatives is highly speculative. See City of South Lake Tahoe, 625 F.2d at 238 (exposure of plaintiffs to civil liability was wholly speculative where no lawsuit was currently threatened); see also O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974) (“attempting to anticipate” whether respondent will be charged with a crime which will possibly lead to them suffering a constitutional violation takes the Court into “the area of speculation and conjecture”). The State Representatives’ liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes multiple logical leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and conversion for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office. Because the alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural, this group also fails to satisfy the standing requirements.
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing based on an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing under the reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe, as discussed above.
d. Federal Taxpayers
Plaintiffs argue that they have standing to challenge President Obama’s unconstitutional presidency as federal taxpayers. However, Plaintiffs concede that current Supreme Court precedent would not allow for standing in this situation and that the Court could only find taxpayer standing should it expand the Supreme Court’s holdings. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 19:22-20:11. As a basis for this standing, Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand the Supreme Court holding in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942 (1968). In Flast, federal taxpayers sought to enjoin the expenditure of federal funds by Congress on the purchase of textbooks and other materials for use in parochial schools on grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Id. at 85. The Supreme Court rejected the Government’s position that standing could never be established on the basis of taxpayer status and held that taxpayer standing could be established if the taxpayer demonstrates “that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress” by Article 1, Section 8. Id. at 103. The Court stated that it lacked confidence that the issues would be framed with the necessary specificity to establish standing in cases “where a taxpayer seeks to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.” Id. at 106.
Flast involved the challenge of congressional spending, whereas Plaintiffs in this case appear to be challenging the President’s role in making any executive decisions, presumably including spending, even though Congress, not the President, is granted the taxing and spending power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing argument ties into their universal argument that if the President has been elected without meeting the Constitution’s requirements, then every presidential order is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ dispute against the President is a generalized grievance, not tied to a specific spending measure in violation of the Constitution. Tellingly, Plaintiffs make no argument pertaining to a particular spending provision, and their argument does not even relate to the limits of the congressional taxing and spending power as discussed in Flast.
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand standing grounds, arguing that the reasoning of Flast regarding the Establishment Clause is analogous to the natural born citizen clause because it is “an absolute limitation on the unconstitutional exercise of power by government whose effect (i.e. injury) will always be by definition diffuse rather than particularized.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 20:5-11. Even ignoring the fact that Flast’s holding was limited to Establishment Clause claims which are not present here, Flast clearly required that in order for taxpayer status to create standing, the taxpayer must demonstrate a nexus between the challenged spending and the constitutional right. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 605, 127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007) (requiring a “link” between congressional action and constitutional violation). Here, Plaintiffs do not show a nexus between any challenged spending provision passed by Congress and the constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 228, 94 S. Ct. 2925 (1974) (taxpayers did not have standing because they failed to establish a nexus between the challenged act and the constitutional violation where the challenged action was one of the executive branch).
Under Flast, Plaintiffs do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the President’s qualifications. Furthermore, expanding the Supreme Court’s holding in Flast to the current situation would be contrary to later Supreme Court jurisprudence reaffirming the narrow circumstances in which taxpayer status establishes standing. See, e.g., Hein, 551 U.S. at 615 (rejecting broad reading of Flast and affirming its application only to Congressional action, stating, “in the four decades since Flast was decided, we have never extended its narrow exception to a purely discretionary Executive Branch expenditure.”); Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 618, 108 S. Ct. 2562 (1988) (reaffirming Flast and acknowledging that Flast creates only a “narrow exception” to the “general rule against taxpayer standing”). The taxpayer plaintiffs have failed to allege injury-in-fact.
e. Relatives
The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff Kurt Fuqua (“Fuqua”) has “traced his genealogy to be common with Mr. Obama’s” and that he thereby has standing because of “family relationship” and “concerns of the family medical history.” Compl. ¶¶ 49, 52. The Court finds that Plaintiff Fuqua also fails to satisfy standing requirements based on his alleged familial ties to President Obama. The Complaint alleges that this family relationship, as well as purported concerns Plaintiff has regarding his family medical history, establish standing. Id. ¶ 52. The Court takes this to mean that Fuqua has a greater interest in finding out where President Obama was born than the average citizen. Plaintiff Fuqua’s injury from an allegedly unqualified president is not any greater than the common citizen’s injury simply because he is allegedly related to President Obama.
The “general right” of “every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law” is insufficient to establish standing. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S. Ct. 274 (1922). Plaintiff’s stake in this controversy as a citizen is no greater than the millions of other United States citizens, and the harm he alleges is too vague. As such, Fuqua has not alleged an injury-in-fact because the grievance of a citizen in the alleged violation of the natural born citizen clause is too generalized. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
f. Political Candidates
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Wiley S. Drake (“Drake”), Alan Keyes (“Keyes”), Gail Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), and Markham Robinson (“Robinson”) have “unique political standing” because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president or vice president in the 2008 national election. Compl. ¶ 5. Keyes was the presidential nominee for the American Independent Party (also called America’s Independent Party on some ballots) in the 2008 Presidential election, and Plaintiff Drake was the vice presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election on the California ballot. Pl. W.D.’s Opp’n 1:6-13. Lightfoot was also a vice presidential nominee for the American Independent Party.
Plaintiff Robinson was “a pledged Presidential elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election for the California ballot.” Id. In order to establish injury-in-fact, the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 n.1. Defendants argue that the political candidate plaintiffs have failed to establish injury-in-fact because they were not serious enough contenders for the presidency that another candidate’s alleged lack of qualifications for the position could cause them any harm. Notably, President Obama’s primary opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and President Obama’s Republican Party opponent, Senator John McCain, did not initiate any suits against President Obama regarding his birth status. These candidates, who were poised to benefit the most from the removal of Obama as a candidate, chose to refrain from bringing suit under the natural born citizen clause. Defendants argue that because the third party political candidates would have lost the election in any event, they have not been harmed by competing against a candidate who did not qualify. Defendants state that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the injury-in-fact requirement because they “cannot counter the argument that, from a simple mathematical analysis, . . . they were not on the ballot in enough states in the 2008 Presidential election to even hope that they could gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency of the United States.” Defs.’ Reply 3:6-11. If there should in fact be a dividing line for that is dependent on the likelihood of success in the election, then this is not a case which would hover on that line as Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter. In this case, it does seem highly unlikely that the replacement of President Obama with another Democratic nominee such as Hillary Clinton would have resulted in a victory for Plaintiffs Keyes, Drake, or Lightfoot of the American Independent Party. However, creating a dividing line for standing according to chance of success in political elections is, by the nature of our political system, an especially difficult determination because political elections lack predictability and can be greatly affected by a single speech or action of a candidate. At the same time, perhaps it is precisely this unpredictability of political elections that makes the claim of a third party candidate, who received less than one percent of the popular vote in the 2008 national election that did take place, too speculative to establish standing.
In addition, Defendants’ arguments raise obvious slippery slope objections. Would a candidate such as Ross Perot, who received nearly twenty percent of the popular vote but no electoral college votes in the 1992 election, have a sufficiently strong chance of winning the election to establish standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications? At the same time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that include write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which political candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge their opposing candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into account, at the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot.
The Court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election. Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the Court to pass judgment that Plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference. This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results.
Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson argue that it is irrelevant that those candidates which had the most to gain by removing Obama as a candidate, Secretary Clinton and Senator McCain, are not the candidates challenging President Obama. Plaintiffs encourage the Court to reject Defendants’ success-based concept of standing. They make a qualitatively different argument regarding why they have suffered injury as political candidates, an argument that does not require the Court to consider their likelihood of winning the election. Plaintiffs argue that the injury they suffered was the deprivation of the right to run for office on a fair playing field against only candidates who meet the constitutional requirements to serve as President. Under
this theory, the injury is not that of being deprived the chance to win, but being deprived the chance to compete only against “legitimate” candidates. If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election.
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.
B. Redressability, Political Question, and Separation of Powers
The third prong of Article III standing requires that the alleged injury be likely to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citations omitted). The redressability prong requires the court to “examine whether ‘the court has the power to right or to prevent the claimed injury.’” Railway Labor Executives Ass’n v. Dole, 760 F.2d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gonzales v. Gorusch, 688 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1985)). While standing generally focuses upon the potential plaintiff and his or her relationship to the alleged harm, the redressability prong of standing turns the focus upon the type of redress that the court is able to offer to the plaintiff. Courts will refrain from finding standing in cases where, regardless of a showing of injury-in-fact, the court would be unable to offer redress that would cure plaintiff’s harm. See Railway Labor Executives Ass’n, 760 F.2d at 1023-24 (plaintiffs failed to satisfy redressability prong where court did not have the power to “fashion[] an enforcement manual for an executive branch agency that was presumably commissioned by Congress to devise its own enforcement strategy”).
Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury would only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office. Plaintiffs thereby ask this Court to intervene and overthrow a president who was elected by “We the People”–over sixtynine million of the people. President Obama was popularly elected. He received the requisite votes from the Electoral College, which were received and counted by Congress with no objections. President Obama took office at noon on January 20, 2009 pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment. He was sworn in on January 20, 2009, and re-sworn in on January 21, 2009, pledging the oath set forth in Article II, Section 1, cl. 8 of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.
Furthermore, if the Court accepts Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson’s conceptualization of their injury as the harm of being unable to compete in an election with only “legitimate” candidates, redressing the injury of competing in an unfair election would require that the Court order a new national presidential election. Instead of impeachment, which would allow succession by the Vice President and continuation of the order of a functioning government, Plaintiffs seek to shut down the government through an injunction and install a replacement government through a new election. In other words, if the political candidates’ harm is based on their inability to compete against constitutionally qualified candidates, in order to redress that harm the Court would not only have to remove the President, it would have to order a new national election.
The analysis of redressability and political question is significantly different in the context of a sitting president than it would be for a presidential candidate. Therefore, it is a crucial distinction that Plaintiffs’ counsel waited to bring this action until after President
[1 Plaintiffs’ counsel Taitz admitted that the failure to bring a suit before this Court previous to the President’s assumption of office was the fault of counsel due to in-fighting between plaintiffs and between her and counsel Kreep. As stated in the October 5 hearing on this matter:
THE COURT: Just a moment. You didn’t answer my question. Why didn’t you file this case?
MS. TAITZ: Because the plaintiffs wanted to wait for Mr. Kreep.
THE COURT: So that’s a conscious choice on the plaintiffs’ team, then, that you acceded to at that time to put this case in the posture and position of a duly sworn President.
MS. TAITZ: Well, again, Your Honor, not duly sworn President. If one is sworn based on fraudulent information, then the word “duly” wouldn’t. . .
Tr. of Oral Argument 52-53, Oct. 5, 2009.]
Obama’s formal assumption into office.1 See Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2005)) (“‘As with all questions of subject matter jurisdiction except mootness, standing is determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint . . .’”).
Because Plaintiffs did not file this action until the day President Obama took office and was sworn in, any action that this Court takes in this matter is not merely against Senator Obama as a political candidate but against President Obama, this country’s sitting president. In this case, the redressability prong of standing is intimately intertwined with and influenced by another justiciability concept–political question and the separation of powers. Any action taken by the Court would necessarily infringe upon, at the very least, the Executive branch because it would involve a declaration regarding the qualifications of the President. Because the redressability analysis must consider what actions the Court may take against a sitting President, separation of powers concerns regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary sit at the forefront
of the redressability analysis. Plaintiffs have requested both an injunction and a declaratory judgment in the Complaint. Compl. ¶¶ 11-22. Plaintiffs would have the Court reverse the election of President Obama by the American people through a declaratory judgment or injunction that would result in the removal of the President from office. The power of this Court generally to issue an injunction or
[2 The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling.]
declaratory judgment against the President is limited at best. The Supreme Court has stated that enjoining a President is an “extraordinary” action that should “raise[ ] judicial eyebrows.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (1992) (plurality opinion). It has also stated that “in general ‘this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.’” Id. at 802-03 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1866)).
In addition, Plaintiffs have requested that other officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, be enjoined. In their original complaint, Plaintiffs also included FBI Director Robert Mueller. While Plaintiffs removed Mueller in their First Amended Complaint following the Court’s suggestion that they narrow and focus their claims, they insisted upon the continued inclusion of the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President as Defendants.2 Plaintiffs’ cause of action is against the President and goes to the heart of the President’s ability to hold office. A remedy directed toward any subordinate officials would not redress Plaintiffs’ injury. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury could not be redressed through the
injunction of other subordinate executive officials which may be more properly within the power of this Court. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863 (1952). The case of Newdow v. Bush is instructive regarding the power of the Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President. In Newdow, the court considered whether plaintiff had standing to seek a preliminary injunction against President Bush restraining him from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at his inauguration. 355 F. Supp. 2d 265, 268 (D. D.C. 2005). The court observed that issuing an injunction against the President “raises serious separation of powers concerns” and further asserted that “[t]here is longstanding legal authority that the judiciary lacks the power to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the co-equal branches of the government–the President and the Congress.” Id. at 280. The court rejected the argument that there should be an exception read into the President’s immunity “where he is claimed to have violated the Constitution.” Id. at 282. Further, the court found that the same considerations foreclosing the possibility of issuing an injunction against the President foreclosed the possibility of issuing a request for declaratory judgment. Id. at 281. In this case, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that President Obama is not a constitutionally elected president. Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to enjoin the President from issuing a particular order; they request that President Obama be enjoined from issuing any orders whatsoever and be enjoined from holding the office of President. Plaintiffs make it clear from their briefing that they believe that any order issued by a president who does not satisfy the natural-born citizen clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, in order to cure Plaintiffs’ perceived injury, the Court would need to wade deep into the waters of the President’s official duties–in fact, it would have to declare that the President could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave.
Beyond the general power of this Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President, the Court must consider its power to take any action removing the President from office. Defendants have argued that the Court cannot suitably redress any injury to Plaintiffs because the Court does not have the power to upseat the President. They further argue that because the Court lacks this power, any declaratory judgment issued by the Court finding that the President was not qualified to hold his office would be a nullity. Removing the President would not only affect the Executive branch, it may also infringe upon the power of the Legislative branch granted by the Constitution in matters of Presidential impeachment and succession. Defendants argue that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to remove a president through Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which address impeachment, and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the removal of the president should he or she be unfit to serve.
The non-justiciability of an action on political question grounds is “primarily a function of the separation of powers” and pertains to “the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S. Ct. 691 (1962). The key inquiry is whether the matter has “in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government.” Id. at 211. The Supreme Court has set forth factors indicating the existence of a political question:
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Id. at 217.
Thus, the Court turns to the first factor set forth in Baker v. Carr–whether the Court finds a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.” Id. The natural born citizen clause is couched in absolute terms of qualifications and does not designate which branch should evaluate whether the qualifications are fulfilled. Therefore, the Court necessarily turns to a structural analysis of the Constitution regarding the role of the respective branches of government in deciding the qualifications of a sitting president to hold office.
Three provisions of the Constitution speak to which branch of government has the power to evaluate the qualifications of a president: the Twelfth Amendment, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment provides a role for Congress to make the ultimate determination of who shall be president and vice president through the counting of the electoral votes. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the succession to presidency and vice presidency in the case the president is disabled,
[3 Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).]
including by death or resignation, directs that in the case where there is disagreement as to whether the President is able to discharge the powers and duties of his or her office, “Congress shall decide the issue.”
The Twentieth Amendment, known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” addresses the task of ensuring that someone holds the office of president in the case of the death of a president or the failure of a president to be chosen or qualify by the beginning of his or her term. The Twentieth Amendment provides: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Even though these provisions of the Constitution tend to suggest that, at least in some circumstances, it is within the province of Congress to decide whether the President meets the qualifications to serve,3 the Court cannot reach the issue of whether in all cases the interpretation of the natural born citizen clause would present a political question. Instead, because redress of Plaintiffs’ alleged harm would require removal of President Obama, the key analysis is whether the power to remove a sitting president from office is textually committed to another branch. The Constitution grants to Congress the sole power of impeachment of the President. The Constitution reads, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. In Nixon v. United States, when considering the issue of whether the Court could review the manner in which the Senate conducted impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court focused on the grant of “sole” power to try impeachments to the Senate, noting that the definition of sole is “‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’” 506 U.S. 224, 231, 113 S. Ct. 732 (1993). The Court ruled that the text of the impeachment clause indicated a purposeful decision by the Framers to commit impeachment to the Legislative branch. Id. at 235-36.
Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession “in case of the removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or inability to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role for the judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch. In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon involved the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review of impeachment of the President:
This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.
506 U.S. at 236.
The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch other than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as well. The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders. Evaluation of the other Baker v. Carr factors confirms that refraining from taking jurisdiction over this matter is appropriate. Specifically, the factors of (1) “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;” (2) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;” and (3) “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question” all support the impropriety of assuming jurisdiction. 369 U.S. at 217.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal from office would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for Congress. Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for President, they argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he does not validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s requirements regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment.
Finally, they reasoned that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the President is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore within the province of this Court.
There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president -– removal for any reason -– is within the province of Congress, not the courts.
This case highlights the complicated relationship between the redressability prong of standing and the political question doctrine in cases where the plaintiff’s injuries can only be addressed through a court taking action against another branch of the government. Because the Court finds that it does not have the power nor the right to redress the political candidates’ injury by removing a sitting President from office, the Court does not have jurisdiction as to the political candidates’ claims on the basis that they fail to satisfy the redressability requirement of Article III standing.
Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing on injury-in-fact and redressability grounds. Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief, injunction, and Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED.
C. Quo Warranto Claims
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged. Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia. At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because, while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.
D. Discovery and Freedom of Information Act Claims
Plaintiffs argue that they have been ignored by several government agencies in their quest to receive Obama’s long-form Hawaiian birth certificate and other information such as his passport records. See Compl. ¶¶ 86 – 109. Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”). Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
As support for their right to these documents, Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under the Freedom of Information Act. The Complaint states, “The Plaintiffs as a group may not have adhered closely or precisely to the letter of FOIA in all of their approaches to the current administration for information, but this court has assured them that the present case will be decided on its legal merits and factual substance, and not on procedural irregularities.” Compl. ¶ 59. In Plaintiffs’ briefing, they state, “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 8:27-28.
However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. FOIA only applies to entities qualifying as an “agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines “agency” as, “any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. at § 551(1). The Executive Office of the President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the President himself. All of the Defendants–President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Gates–are individuals, not agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.
E. Claims Against the Remaining Defendants
Plaintiffs have also named Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and Robert Gates as defendants. Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and reque
-sted that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
IV. DISPOSITION
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2009
_______________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Judge
See full article with illustrations:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113004
Obama from Kenya, archived report says
Revives worry about president’s eligibility for office
Posted: October 15, 2009
2:34 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An archived article from 2004 on Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois describes the relative political newcomer as “Kenyan-born,” providing further fuel for speculation over the president’s eligibilty for office.
WND has noted various news reports that have either stated or implied Obama’s birthplace is not Hawaii, as he has claimed, but Africa.
The issue is significant, since there are a number of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility that argue if he was not born in the U.S., he does not meet the requirement in the Constitution that the president be a “natural born” citizen.
WND further has reported on the disagreement among those documenting Obama’s presidency over which Hawaii hospital was his birth place.
Now have come a flood of blog questions and e-mails regarding the apparently archived article from the Sunday Standard in Kenya.
The report starts out, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”
The report continues to discuss the allegations against Ryan, Obama’s opponent in his race for the U.S. Senate, and his decision to drop out, virtually handing the Senate seat to the political newcomer.
The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press at the bottom of the page. However, the article could not be found either in the AP archives available to the public online or the archive on the newspaper’s website. WND telephone calls and e-mails to the newspaper did not generate a response.
At the Post & Email blog, writer John Charlton offered several explanations, including the suggestion references to Obama’s birth have been scrubbed.
He wrote that a search of Google for the issue produced unusual results.
“When you attempt to search for ‘Kenyan-born Obama’; results are missing; years prior to 2004 seem scrubbed; and when you click a link to an article in 2000, you get an article in 2004.
“Deliberate sabotage of their own news archive?” he wondered.
He said searching Google for the reference words “Kenyan-born U.S. Senator Obama hopeful” came up with a 1981 New York Times reference, but Obama is not in the article.
“There is no mention of Obama from 1981 to 2000; despite all his ‘work with the poor’ in Chicago,” Charlton continued.
The June 27, 2004, article from the Standard doesn’t appear.
A further link to PBS leads to a story about Obama’s Senate victory, another to USA Today talks about Obama’s father being Kenyan-born and another from 2004 does the same.
“Then, you would not believe it; but all the newspapers in the world, during the period from Jan. 1, 2005 to April 12, 2006, don’t make one mention of Obama! Not even one,” he said.
The bottom line, however, Charlton wrote, should not be what published reports have said, but what proof Obama can provide.
“If Obama cannot show documents which prove he is born in the USA; the mere fact that he has claimed to be born overseas and in the U.S.A.; first at one hospital in Hawaii and then at another; means that nothing he says in court, and no document presented by his campaign could be taken as prima facie evidence of anything.”
Earlier this year, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster delivered references to President Obama’s birthplace as being outside of the United States, even as a controversy had developed over a letter purporting to be from the president claiming Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu as his birth location.
Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama’s visit to the west African nation.
Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she suggested, “Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him.”
The video of the report is at this link.
Her report talks about the party atmosphere and the Obama fan clubs who have posted “Welcome home” signs.
(Story continues below)
Meanwhile, a report at Modern Ghana also posted in advance of the president’s visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.
“For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth,” the report said.
The Modern Ghana report also cited the expectations that Obama would make a foreign policy pronouncement during his visit.
Kenya’s East African Standard also, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled “From Young ‘Barry’ to Top American Senator,” previously said of Obama: “The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii in Manoa.”
WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.
Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii
But after WND drew attention to a letter from the president declaring as his birthplace the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu instead, news sources and websites jumped to scrub the Queen’s location and replace it with Kapi’olani.
As WND reported, the White House insists Obama was born in Hawaii but has thus far refused to verify which hospital the president claims as his birthplace or whether the letter – purportedly from President Obama claiming Kapi’olani – is, in fact, real.
The lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility continue in several parts of the country, and in fact a California federal judge has scheduled a trial on the dispute to begin in January.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Yet another court finds Attorney Taitz’s conduct improper and unethical.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalin, patientia nostra!
According to the Judge, “It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
More grease for the skids carrying a legal career down the drain.
[The Latin was for Mike Appleton, who knows what it means. Cicero was addressing the Senate in opposition to the Cataline conspiracy, asking “O how long, Catalina, will you abuse our patience?”
“While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.”
Art Bull, the entire World Nut story is bogus.
So a Kenyan paper called Obama “Kenyan born” in 2004. So what?
Two, repeat, TWO, Hawaiian papers reported Obama’s birth in Honolulu in 1961, the very year of his birth. They based their reports on information received from hospitals furnished by official government agencies, and furnished to the papers by the agencies.
Lawyers and law students at the Turley blog know the “best evidence” rule, and that anonymous, unsourced Kenyan report is as far from the best evidence as you can get.
The birth announcements support the COLB, which is an official “birth certificate” under every known legal definition of that term. Hawaiian officials have stated that their records (which state law protects from disclosure) show that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya, since she was mistranslated and the birthers never mention the correct translation.
Art Bull has not answered the fact that World Nut continues to lie about the idea that COLBs can show that foreign born babies were born in Hawaii. That is illegal under Hawaiian law. How about an answer.
Also, Associated Press has publicly confirmed that the article it originated in 2004 NEVER included the phrase “Kenyan born.” That phrase was inserted by a party or parties unknown.
It has all the credibility of an unripe tomato.
“WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.”
Another lie. I tracked this down when bdaman posted it. I found the original source in and article in “Rainbow Newsletter” by a high school reporter. Maya NEVER stated that Obama was born at Queens in the article. The high school kid said that. All the other sources just parroted that false statement.
BOTH medical centers in Honolulu are named for queens. The Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu was named for Queen Kapi’olani. They are often confused by strangers. The Obamas have consistently stated that he was born in Kapi’olani.
And the hospital never scrubbed anything. I found that the letter from Obama saying that he was born there was still posted proudly on their site in their newsletter long after the supposed scrubbing.
Lies, lies, lies.
Is AB channeling birther and bdaman by any chance?
Now I know what it feels like to be pecked by a flock of ducks. Sodomists, Acorn and black race of Cain unite against religious white males, and in the case of Orly Taitz, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Prajean, Malkin, all extremely beautiful and intelligent conservative women. Racism and sexism against the “white and delightsome” Prajean, Taitz, Bachman, and sultry, fiery, insightful, witty Malkin. Darwinism is false. I have been accused of one sodomite here of blasphemy for using scripture to correctly label wacko Darwinists, leftist fools using the inspired judgment of Paul of the sodomites of his day:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Rom 1:26-32)
.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Tim 3:16)
Of course the Scriptures are not with the sodomites, therefore they do not use them, because they are incompetent. I am more than competent and what is more, a legal administrator, having been caught up to behold for myself as written in the book “The Revelations of Jesus Christ” (see http://artbulla.com):
FIRST VISION
While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being inducted into the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I received the following vision, while on the road on foot:
December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of it I could not tell, and I beheld his face, and He spake unto me face to face as one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and whether in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory, which surpasses all understanding, and spake while in the vision, in a much better tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to be the Adamic Tongue, my understanding being quickened by such might and intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the Spirit of Revelation which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that He lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory, for having once beheld his face and felt of his love and might and power and beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with anything else, this world or its allurments. And having been ordained unto the Holy Order of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostleship, the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him and conversed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power, and that they be gathered out according to the Revelations which are being given unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest periods and most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth, that Zion may descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become One, as prayed by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Nazareth. Yea, my Father, I pray that thy will be done and thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Even so. Amen.
“December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body…”
So that explains it. Art is not only out of his mind, he is also out of his body. Aw, hell, no one could make this stuff up! The artful Art Bulla is still in the throes of an OOBE, out in space with the Junior Galactic Raiders of the Universal Empire.
Art also talks like a white supremacist, accusing the left of “being traitors to their race.” It is grim window into the mind of the birther underworld.
Darwinists aka “anti-Christs” (a more correct appellation) always use the same argument: “out of his mind”, proving how wicked and corrupt they are, therefore adding blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to their long train of foul acts, attributing the Holy Ghost to the “effect of a frenzied mind”:
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the EFFECT OF A FRENZIED MIND; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms–telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.
(Alma 30:12-18)
More junk science.
More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:
The Revelations of Jesus Christ
Section 14: 29-66
29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explanation of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.
30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.
31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific community, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stubbornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their paychecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?
32 I have pointed these contradictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this letter to the satisfaction of a child.
33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed himself personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiricism, I received two blaring contradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.
34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all scientific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a naturalist who drew erroneous conclusions from a loose collection of facts.
35 I will show you how the world has been deceived:
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple organisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random, chance process.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than one than one which is disorganized.
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: suppose we take the random arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be generous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists, to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8 seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.
61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, saith the Lord God of Israel), who have found conclusively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous strengths, why do they die?
63 And why is it that when organisms die, does the law of entropy take over, and the corporeal substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?
64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or catalyzing energy which effects this organization to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “creations” lose their organization, and hence decay back to their “native element”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to remain, intact.
65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.
66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the belief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the foundation of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2: 11.
Good one:
“Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter”
Rimshot. Badda-BING!
Art Bulla–
Take your medication and step away from the computer.
Art Bulla,
I knew from your statements that you were a blasphemer, but then I went to your website and learned that your sins do not end with blasphemy. I sincerely pray that your ask for the Lord’s forgiveness
for putting false idols before Him and repent now, or God save your eternal soul.
Vince, great work as usual. Thanks for the reference to the Catalinian oration. I had to memorize great chunks of it in my junior year in high school. In my senior year I fell in love with Virgil, and fantasized that I would produce a new English translation of the Aeneid which would surpass anything previously done. I seem to have misplaced that particular project somewhere along the way.
It is interesting that Ms. Taitz has now added possible subornation of perjury to her growing list of ethical lapses. The only interesting question remaining is whether she will be dismissed by the bar before the last of her cases is dismissed by the courts.
With regard to Mr. Bulla, I started to read his comments from several days ago, but he lost me at “traitors to their own race.” He appears at times to be walking along the top of an unstable fence separating reality from fantasy, occasionally falling off. Reading him produces an image of Elmer Gantry on mushrooms, with a decided anal fixation.
Vince,
I do not know how you have the patience to deal with these trolls who have no regard for facts. This latest version also seems to think he/she is the Messiah. If he is, then we are all in trouble.
Mike A.,
I would expect our old friend Orly to be removed from the bar in short order with this long list of charges.
Thanks, rafflaw.
The words of the Judge on subornation of perjury suggest that the State Prosecutors ought to bring the case to the Grand Jury for possible indictment:
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
This is getting far more serious than a mere disbarment.
There is a long – 30 pp or so — declaration by ed-convict Lucas Daniel Smith that has been up on the web since October 12, saying that Taitz wanted him to testify falsely. He filed it with the Judge, so this is likely to be one of the sworn affidavits that he saw.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx
I am linking it but not posting it because it is totally worthless, except as evidence of subornation. I posted the entire decision by Judge Carter because there is so much for all of to learn from it about standing, political questions, and our constitutional system of government.
Raff,
If my google-fu skills are up to par, Vince has a long history of dealing with people with no regard for facts.
Thanks, Gyges.
Here is another Nutworld chestnut: “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”
There was no hearing on McCain. What alternate universe are they transmitting from? There was a non-binding resolution that passed the Senate. Senators made statements. Research by Tribe and Olson was put in the record. I pasted up the entire memo here at the Turley blog.
I will now type real slow-like so that the birfers can read along with their lips:
McCain was born OUTSIDE the 50 states. There WAS a question whether he was a “natural born citizen.” It was debated here, and just put those words in the search window to read about it.
There was no question about Obama, and no need for a resolution, because — he — was — born — in — the — USA.
There was no question about Obama because — he — produced — his — birth — certificate.
If badaman and birther Byrne are lurking, they know where the discussions were posted.
Here is a reprint of an earlier post.
According to Professor John Yinger, Hamilton warned implicitly, early in the Convention before the natural born citizen clause was introduced, against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States, and said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.”
It appears that Hamilton, an immigrant himself, was not in favor of restrictions on immigrants, and would have favored a broad reading of “natural born,” not a narrow one that excluded children born in the U.S. to alien immigrants.
This is made clear by looking at his entire suggested draft: The full clause was: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
Note the words that are not there. He did not say “born to citizens” or “citizen parents” or “citizen” father. He did not say born in the United States. He said “born a citizen of the United States.”
The words exclude a narrow category of naturalized citizens from the Presidency and Vice Presidency. At the time, just about everyone born in the United States was born a citizen, except for the child of the British Ambassador. Just about everyone born in Britain became a British subject, except for the child of the American Ambassador.
The evidence shows that Hamilton favored the immigration of aliens to the United States.
Source and context: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/testimony.htm
QUOTE The first draft of the Constitution that contained the Electoral College also was also the one that first contained the clause restricting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens.(3) This joint appearance of the Electoral College and the denial of presidential eligibility for naturalized citizens is somewhat ironic. After all, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running to the President through the Legislature. However, the long debate about eligibility requirements for legislators apparently left the Founders uncomfortable with prospect of eliminating all eligibility requirements in the process of presidential selection. As a result, they added the natural born citizen requirement even though it was no longer needed.
This addition may have been controversial. In fact, two of the most influential Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, argued against it, at least implicitly, earlier in the Convention by warning against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States. Then he said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.” UNQUOTE, footnotes omitted.
Mike,
This was posted over at Leo Donofrio’s blog last September:
QUOTE ON whistleblower Says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
“Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it”.
Many bloggers, who are not lawyers, are providing more accurate, and supported, legal analysis than are the partisan lawyers.
The statement should be “Beware of bloggers who are, and are not, lawyers giving you…”
Vince Treacy and Mike Appleton, over at Prof. Jonathan Turley’s blog are perfect examples of lawyers giving unsupported, inaccurate interpretations of the law. UNQUOTE
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/ [scroll down to Sep 29, 12:29 pm]
If you are lurking, or googling yourself, Sorry that you are not happy, whistleblower.
But your post is not very helpful to me or Mike, because you do not give even a single example of an UNSUPPORTED, INACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW that Mike or I may have written.
“Oh! that mine adversary had written a book….”
Mike and I have put up a lot of support for all our positions, and have patiently answered a lot of questions. You did nothing at Leo’s site except to make a single, unsupported allegation about us.
While you are at it, W., say goodnight to Leo. He stopped posting at his blog weeks ago and has disappeared from the fray.
To all,
I apologize for this massive, off-topic post. It really bothers me that our educational system has failed so badly as to produce delusional, homophobic, racist idiots like Art Bulla and since he’s talking about a subject I care deeply about, I feel the need to respond. Maybe Vince can give us another spooky chapter in “Orly and the doomed lawsuit” to help get us back on track…
Art Bulla,
I’m sorry that you are a small, hate-filled man and while reading your ignorant, diseased writings sickens me, I feel it is necessary to shine a light on your specious and uneducated ravings about science.
You said:
“More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:”
The theory of evolution (what I assume you mean when you say ‘Darwinism’), is one of the most fundamentally sound and well-verified theories in all of science with over 200,000 studies in peer-reviewed journals over a variety of scientific disciplines supporting it and exactly zero providing any evidence refuting it. As both a scientist and a liberal (I’m not a sodomite, but I am willing to learn
), the foundation of my liberalism is compassion for my fellow human being (even you) and a passionate belief that it’s always possible for things to get better. I don’t belong to any groups named with greek letters, but I do hold a Ph.D. in mathematics and I’m currently employed as a mathematical biologist doing cancer research at a major university. The only person who is proved an ideologue and a fool (with misuse of mathematical probability, among other things) by this trash you’ve written is yourself and I find your hateful preaching an insult to the teachings of Jesus Christ (by denigrating everything he stood for – now there was a great liberal!).
“29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explanation of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.”
The theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the multiplicity of species we see today and conforms with physics, mathematics and all phenomena which have been observed in every pertinent way. You can tell this by the total lack of any scholarly articles with evidence refuting evolution. And just as an aside, science doesn’t prove anything (that’s what mathematics is about), it provides a framework for collecting and interpreting evidence about the physical universe – ‘provable phenomena’ are just banal pieces of data, theories are the heart of science where the data is transformed into a deeper understanding of the universe around us.
“30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.”
Evolution doesn’t contradict anything (unless you count out-dated unscientific myths). The statement is true, however. (That might be a first for you!)
“31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific community, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stubbornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their paychecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?”
The key principle of science is that experiments must be repeatable, which provides an internal check against liars (witness the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco a while back) and I believe that the success of science in advancing our understanding of the universe and giving rise to all of our modern technology (including technology and understanding developed based on the theory of evolution). I believe in science because it works – while your false religion has a very poor track record of increasing our understanding of the universe in any useful way.
“32 I have pointed these contradictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this letter to the satisfaction of a child.”
Really, your uneducated irrational ravings didn’t convince someone that an enormous amount of scientific evidence collected over the last 150 years is wrong? You might be able to convince a child, but it would have to be a pretty stupid, credulous child – anyone else would see your arguments as the mass of bovine excrement that they are.
“33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed himself personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiricism, I received two blaring contradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.”
Mentally unstable people such as yourself should probably avoid LSD.
“34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all scientific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a naturalist who drew erroneous conclusions from a loose collection of facts.”
The fact that Darwin was not a hard scientist and had no understanding of things like, say DNA and yet was able to produce a theory whose mechanisms were not understood until the discovery of DNA 100 years later, but was still able to make successful predictions in the field of genetics is a testament to the soundness of the theory and the brilliance of Charles Darwin.
“35 I will show you how the world has been deceived:”
Sure.
“36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple organisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random, chance process.”
You make a mistake common to scientifically illiterate people – the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, it tells us how life evolved into the multiplicity of species that we see today. While how life originated is a fascinating question and science has a long way to go in explaining abiogenesis, results like the Miller-Urey experiment are promising and all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
“37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).”
If you had actually studied thermodynamics (which I have) you would know that the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems (more specifically, closed systems near equilibrium) unlike the earth, which is constantly having energy added to it by the sun. Also, the 2nd law states that robots must obey… oops, sorry! … states that entropy (a measure of disorder in a system) always increases, not energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, water runs uphill perfectly well, provided you have a pump.
“38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).”
Entropy isn’t a process – as I said above, it is a measure of disorder. Spontaneous organization of systems of high energy density is common in nature (star formation, just to name one) – take a look at the works of Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine if you’d like to learn more. And if you’re talking about the human body, you aren’t speaking of random collisions of molecules.
“39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than one than one which is disorganized.”
Once again energy and entropy are two separate concepts and energy is neither created or destroyed.
“40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.”
Like, maybe, the sun? Heat from the earth’s core? Volcanoes? Lightning? Tidal forces?
“41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally complex organization as that of the human body!”
No, but evolution can.
“42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.”
No, it just takes a little faith in the scientific method and evidence collected by generations of scientists across dozens of disciplines…
“43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.”
Yes, you do seem to be short on logic and reasoning ability.
“44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: suppose we take the random arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).”
Evolution is not random, nor does it purport to explain the origin of life.
“45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).”
There are proteins made up of a few amino acids and proteins made up of thousands and just about everything in between.
“46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?”
A lot higher than you think, if the question is ‘what are the odds of a particular protein occurring via the process of evolution?’ (which is the appropriate question).
“47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!”
This is the chance of getting a specific protein if you select 100 amino acids at random. It has nothing to do with the chances of said protein appearing in nature.
“48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!”
Yes, it is. You understand exponential notation, how wonderful for you.
“49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.”
So?
“50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be generous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.”
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.”
I lumped these all together as this hypothetical of yours forms a clear picture of just how badly you misunderstand mathematics, probability and science. Congratulations, you have laboriously created a meaningless and incomprehensible hypothetical.
“54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.”
There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. And then there is complete and utter male cattle poop like what you present. One more time: evolution is not a random process.
“55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists, to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.”
None of us are poor in spirit compared to the utter destitution that you exist in. Please continue with your stupid, meaningless hypothetical.
“56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8 seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.”
Wow, you took quite a while to spew that nonsensical drivel, do you feel better now? I put the odds of you ever stumbling across a rational, well-organized argument at infinity to one against.
“61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, saith the Lord God of Israel), who have found conclusively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
Since you are clearly a bigot, I assume that you don’t believe this. To make this statement have any scientific meaning whatsoever, you need to tell us what the scientific definition of the ’spirit’ is (not to mention why a urologist has relevant expertise).
“62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous strengths, why do they die?”
There are immortal organisms – cancer cells (this comes from the work of recent Nobel Laureates on the protein telomerase). And organisms do not evolve (except in bad sci-fi), species evolve over many generations.
“63 And why is it that when organisms die, does the law of entropy take over, and the corporeal substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?”
It was the salmon mousse.
“64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or catalyzing energy which effects this organization to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “creations” lose their organization, and hence decay back to their “native element”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to remain, intact.”
You go girl.
“65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.”
Bring it on. You can make all of the commands that you want, but nobody here has any inclination to obey you.
“66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the belief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the foundation of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
This whole post has no bearing upon any sort of science in any way. What it means is that you are a pathetic, bigoted, misogynistic racist with delusions of grandeur who has absolutely no idea just how disgusting his diseased ramblings are. I suggest you get professional help. Excuse me, but I have to go and wash your putrescent ideas out of my brain now.
When I was a teen that I read my first copies of “Broca’s Brain” and “The Dragons of Eden” until the spines broke.
Vince,
You mean Leo hasn’t retreated to his ultra-secret lair to prepare the ultimate birther case which will finally remove President Obama from office?
Art said of God, “for I have seen Him and He is a white male.”
That reminds me of the old joke about the bigoted, sexist, racist who came back from the dead after seeing God.
They asked him what God was like.
He said, “Sh*t, the first thing is that she is African American.”
Slart, brilliant. I read it all, and learned a lot. My hero, Isaac Asimov, the Good Doctor (I met him personally at the local library back in the early 1960s), the author of the (other) Three Laws, is proud of you.
After all, after Isaac died, Kurt Vonnegut told the assembled American atheists that “Isaac is up in heaven.” Everyone fell on the floor laughing.
http://www.vonnegutweb.com/archives/arc_nice.html
Kurt speaking to us from Heaven: “Do you know what a Humanist is? I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that functionless capacity. We Humanists try to behave well without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.
We had a memorial services for Isaac a few years back, and at one point I said, ”Isaac is up in Heaven now.” It was the funniest thing I could have said to a group of Humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ”Kurt is up in Heaven now.” That’s my favorite joke.”
Vince,
If you learned something from my post, consider it a small payment for all I have learned from you here. I came to this blog because I was nervous that there might be some truth to the birther’s arguments and now, after reading your posts here, I feel like I could beat Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, and Mario Appuzo in a debate (Although I have to believe that the three of them together would cause anyone to start bleeding from the ears in short order). Dr. Asimov is one of my heroes, too (deep down, I still want to be a psychohistorian when I grow up). Curiously, you’re the second person to mention to me that he had met Dr. Asimov recently (mentioned to me recently, not met Dr. Asimov recently
). My thesis advisor had lunch with him when he was a post-doc in Manhattan, a fascinating if somewhat intimidating experience (the other people at the lunch were closer to Dr. Asimov’s stature than my advisor’s). I’d never heard that Vonnegut quote before, but the thought of Kurt up in heaven brings a wonderful smile to my face. So it goes…
I just read Leo’s post about Judge Carter’s ruling over at naturalborncitizen, his spin is that Judge Carter implied that a Quo Warranto case in the DC court is the appropriate venue for removing President Obama from office.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/judge-carter-the-writ-of-quo-warranto-must-be-brought-within-the-district-of-columbia-because-president-obama-holds-office-within-that-district/
And if you enjoy schadenfreude, here’s a deeply ironic post from a birther blog. Be sure to check out the first few comments.
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/two-judges/
Vince, thanks for the heads up on whistleblower. I just left a gracious request on naturalborncitizen requesting Mr. whistleblower to provide some details concerning the “unsupported, innacurate interpretations” of ours that appear to concern him.
Slartibartfast, your responses to Mr. Bulla are truly devastating. I fear that he may be unwilling to ever again spake unto you.
Mike A,
Awww, I loved being spaken unto. However will I find the strength to go on…
Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism. The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction. The curse of Cain has not been abrogated nor done away with in the least by your junk science and foolishness as evidenced by authoritative revelation from Israel’s God:
14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.
17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.
(2 Ne 28:14-17)
But as to the mark placed upon Cain:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, AS THEY WERE WHITE, AND EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND DELIGHTSOME, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ENTICING UNTO MY PEOPLE THE LORD GOD DID CAUSE A SKIN OF BLACKNESS TO COME UPON THEM.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
(2 Ne 5:21-24)
I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool. And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation. That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you. But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer. Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.
Mike, Leo has a “New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. The chances of your comment being printed are slim. Sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know – most comments will not be printed.”
Yet another reason why I do not post there.
Leo is still dreaming that his quo warranto theory will fly in DC.
Leo is still dreaming of quo warranto.
[Begin quotation]
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court. [End quotation].
Leo the so-called poker player is actually the master of three-card monte. He keeps hiding the nut under the cup.
Of course, Judge Carter did not hold that a quo warranto was improper to challenge the President, because that question was not before him. Once he held that the proper venue was in D.C., not in California, he had no jurisdiction to rule on any other aspects of quo warranto. As a prudent, responsible and learned jurist, he confined his ruling to matters within his jurisdiction.
But the entire rationale of his decision militates against the use of the QW writ:
“Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”
As the Judge stated, the Constitution defines the processes for the removal of a President. It does not include a role for the courts in that process. The Constitution is explicit. The President can be removed by impeachment, within the “sole” powers of impeachment and removal vested in the House and the Senate. The President may also be removed for incapacity under the 20th Amendment.
Leo’s theory is inherently incredible. After 69 million people have voted for Obama, Leo would have a single District Judge in D.C. exercise the power to order a jury trial to remove a President. This, even though the entire House of Representatives (elected by all the people of the nation) and the entire Senate (also elected by all the people under the 12th Amendment) have declined to take action on the unassailable grounds that Obama is fully qualified for the Presidency as a natural born citizen BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
This is insanity. A quo warranto is an action for ordinary appointed municipal and federal officials who happen to hold office in D.C. to test their entitlement to office.
There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed. Federal Judges hold office on good behavior, and have never been removed except by impeachment. Members of Congress serve fixed terms of office, and may only be removed by expulsion by a 2/3rd vote of their respective Houses. The President and Vice President serve four-year terms. Removal is by impeachment.
At one point I posted an account of a suggestion in Congress in the 1880s to pass a law to allow quo warranto proceedings in contested presidential elections. It was never adopted.
Finally, D.C. may not have a Representative or Senators, but it does have the right to vote for President, and it supported Obama overwhelmingly.
What are Leo’s chances for a quo warranto and a D.C. jury trial?
Written prediction ™ ®©:
Nada. None. Below absolute zero.
The other interesting nugget in the ruling was that it might be possible for the courts to have a role in determining a candidate’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. I look forward to the next round of birther lawsuits in 2012 when Obama runs for reelection.
Vince,
You met Asimov, eh? Never has my avatar’s color been more appropriate.
The Washington Post has really become a shadow of itself. It printed a long profile of Orly a while back:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html
A lot of readers protested that it was not really news.
Now, today October 30, 2009, there is real news on the wires and the web, and the Post has nothing. A search of its site shows no report at all about the dismissal of Orly’s suit.
Be sure to check the Turley blog each day for the real news.
The best source I have found for Gnarly Taints news is http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
“We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”
Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.
“Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
“65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.”
Besides your obvious blasphemy in presuming to speak for the Creator, I believe that the “stong delusion” you refer to in your quote refers to you. If you do not immediately repent your sins I am afraid that it is your immortal soul that will burn for eternity. you are putting yourself before god, by decreeing that god speaks through you. The only possible saving grace on you is god’s pity at your obviously distraught mental state. However, unlike you I don’t presume to speak for the Lord and so it is possible that He afflicted you with this delusion as a punishment for your sins. Repent!
Slart, Vince, Mike, Mike,
As always, thank you.
Art,
You realize of course that quoting a book only counts as an argument when the people believe the book to be true?
For instance: I could tell you that “Paladins can’t wear Helms of Destruction,” and since I assume you’re not the type to play early edition D&D (you strike me more as the kind of guy who plays those computerized versions of board games, Monopoly, Scrabble, etc.) you would have every right in saying “can too.”
Orly’s site is often infected with malware, and so is a dangerous visit. Black Lion over at obamaconspiracy.org posted her reaction for Dr. Conspiracy and the gang, so that we can all read it safely. It is like a guided tour of the funhouse of her mind, complete with misspellings and malapropisms. My favorite is “I am the only attorney,…” Read on:
QUOTE ON
From Orly’s Site….
what doesn’t break us, makes us stronger
Posted on | October 29, 2009 |
As many of you know, Judge Carter has issued an order to grant the motion to dismiss.
Clearly it is not the end of the road. We will continue. I need some time to study this order and provide full answer point by point. I will not give a full analysis of judge Carter’s orders at the moment. Today I was inundated with phone calls from different media outlets. Interviews were given to different affiliats of FOX radio, CBS, WND, LA Times, LA Daily Journal, City report, I don’t remember all of them. One interview I remebered. It was with Jessica Rosenthal from FOX radio. She asked me, when will I give up? I asked her in turn: “Jessica, when do you give up on the Constitution of this country? When do you give up on your constitutional rights for redress of grievances, for your right not to be defrauded by the government, not be treated as a slave?”
While I will not address the legal aspects of the order today, I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.
First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.
Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?
There is another issue. There is a vicious circle that you see in a regime. There is no unbiased media. So far no one in our media had integrity of character to report on multiple social security numbers of Obama, even though it is a criminal offense, and with 39 social security numbers a person should be criminally prosecuted and should be serving a lengthy prson term. When media reports nothing, the public and the judges are misinformed. The judges are afraid to make decisions, that they think, will upset the public, and in turn, their timid and lopside decisions influence the media.
Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent? 4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th. How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them? A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico? When people loose their voice, when they are livid from the arrogance shown by the ruling elite, they simply revolt
To be contined…
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/barnet-v-obama-case-dismissed/comment-page-4/#comments
The last paragraph of the WildrootNutOilDailyDouble up above at October 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm said “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a ‘natural born citizen,’ no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”
I have already noted that there never was a hearing. For reference, here is the link to the Turley blog coverage of McCain natural born citizenship, complete with the text of Tribe-Olson:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/
And, of course, the “controlling legal authorities” for anyone born in the United States are the state officials in charge of official birth records. The controlling legal authority in Hawaii issued a Certification of Live Birth, the ONLY form of birth certificate now issued to ANYONE, and department spokespersons later said that they had examined their records and that the records showed Obama was born in Hawaii.
So the Nut lied again. Contrary to their story, controlling legal authority WAS sought and furnished to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
World Net Daily itself concluded last year that the COLB was genuine. Why is THAT fact never pasted up in their stories?
> I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. … I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.
Its rather rich she would complain about that after she herself encouraged her followers to write letters to the courts.
And lo, in the third hour of the fourteen score and second day of the time of Obama I was spaken unto again. And the wrath of Art crashed mightily upon me, yet I was unmoved, save for a single tear of regret that a fellow human being has had his mind so badly twisted by fear, hatred, and lies that he would spew such venomous bile.
Art said:
“Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism.”
I don’t think you understand how poorly your posts come off in comparison to me (and the other regular posters as well). You give racist polemics and biblical and pseudo-biblical quotes while we give evidence and references for our arguments. I believe that most readers can readily see that you don’t understand mathematics or science and have no clue what rational debate is (which is what many of us come here for).
“The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction.”
On the subject of ducks: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. The duck principle tells me that you are a racist, bigoted, homophobe.
I’m just going to ignore the rest of your pseudo-religious BS, except to say that the hatred you spew in the cloak of religion shames everyone who calls themselves a christian (you might want to do some research on what it really means to live according to Jesus’ teachings).
As for your other post:
You said:
“I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Apparently you didn’t understand the part of the bible that says “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
“And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation.”
Nice run-on sentence. I didn’t realize that your post was such a pristine masterpiece that it was forbidden to debate what you said. And enough with the latent homosexuality already – can’t you just find some guy and get a hotel room already? As for you tautological statements, when you use a tautology to attack a straw man, that doesn’t make for a valid argument… I’ll let others judge which one of us the insane ideologue is, but I’m confident that it’s not me.
As a graduate of an outstanding (public) school district who went on to get a BS and an MS from a public university (I got my PhD from a private university), I’ll stack my public education up against yours any day of the week. Furthermore, our public education system is a big part of what has made our country great (you don’t build a strong middle class without an educated workforce).
“That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.”
I don’t need you to tell me what mathematics is all about, especially when you clearly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Tautologies, being statements that are true no matter what the premise (for example, Art is an idiot or Art is not an idiot), are not generally very helpful in establishing that a statement is true given a set of premises (which is called a ‘proof’ and is kind of important in understanding what mathematics is all about).
“I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”
I pity you. I pity your lack of understanding of the world you live in, your small-mindedness, your lack of compassion, and your ignorance. And it’s obvious to me that my mother taught me far more about being a decent human being than you’ve learned from any source. And while I would be respectful to your face, I would also stand by everything I have said here and while I would never start something physical, I would certainly defend myself from a hateful, small-minded, ignorant bigot such as yourself.
“But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in
your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer.”
Unfortunately, my mother died of cancer several years ago, so I can’t sit in her basement, but I do research trying to help understand and cure cancer and I believe she would be proud what I’m doing with my life. I feel sorry for the pain your mother must feel if she is aware of how badly she failed in raising you to be a decent human being. While I’m not a ‘queer’ as you so eloquently put it, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being gay, so your intended insults are ineffective. I’ll just continue to assume that you use words like ‘coward’ and ‘queer’ because deep down this is how you see yourself.
“Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.”
I’ll thank the founding fathers (a bunch of deists and atheists, by the way) and our judiciary (including Judges Carter and Land) for granting and protecting our freedom of speech – although in this particular forum it is Professor Turley granting us that freedom (so thanks to you, too JT). When I don’t know anything about a particular subject, I listen and ask questions – maybe you should try it sometime.
Vince and Slats,
These Orly Trolls are especially slowing in realizing that their claims are baseless and that Orly is going to be dealing with her own “legal” issues.
Thanks to all for illuminating the path of the latest ‘Orlyboros’, Art Bulla. Who chooses by free will to create the dimmest in humanity!
“The truth will be known at Res Ipsa Loquitor,” ah Vince’s hallowed words, it’s forever a treat reading you folks.
“That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”
*************
Art Bulla? I think he left off a few letters from that last name. And lose the “a” too, it makes you look semi-literate when you botch the spelling of common expletives.
LOL. This is the best spoof of a troll I have seen. Continue on Art, it’s getting higher and deeper. Bravo.
For everyone’s ready reference, there is a complete Obama citizenship conspiracy page at wiki that has notes and links for just about every crazy theory out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
It literally took hundreds of years for Bigfoot to get a wiki entry of his own and the Birthers accomplished this feat in less than four years. Impressive. Maybe the Birthers are in the wrong line of work. I hear ‘Nessie is looking for a publicist. Perhaps they could start by attacking its Scottish parentage or lack thereof.
Thanks, BIL.
Just an announcement to all my fans.
I was born in the United States to natural born United States citizen bigfoot parents, and I am running for President in 2012 against the Usurper.
Bigfoot/Kucinich 2012
Bigfoot/Buddha 2102.
Better yet, Buddha/Bigfoot 2102.
Bigfoot,
I’m not voting for you until I see your birth certificate (and it better have all of the information on it that I want – starting with the winners of the next 5 super bowls…).
Vince,
I’m thinking that when the 2012 elections roll around one of the birther lawyers (probably not Orly since I’m guessing that she will be disbarred by then) will find a republican who will declare himself a presidential candidate and pass the standing hurdle and quickly find their worst nightmare realized when the court takes judicial notice of the COLB or statements by the Hawaii DOH (and if they’re really unlucky, the courts will give a definition for natural born citizen). Do you think that in light of Judge Carter’s ruling the birthers will be able to establish standing by challenging President Obama’s eligibility on the 2012 ballot?
Abominable Snowman/Sarah Palin
Pardon me,
Yeah. And the abominable snowman dies in a hunting accident the day after he’s inaugurated.
Slats: “Do you think that in light of Judge Carter’s ruling the birthers will be able to establish standing by challenging President Obama’s eligibility on the 2012 ballot?”
First, the birthers will not be able to attain standing, because they will have no more of a particularized injury or tangible case then than they have now. But a presidential candidate in a state primary might be able to show an actual injury. Gore and Bush had standing in 2000 because Gore had a solid chance of winning the election if the Court had ordered more ballots counted, and if the ballots had gone his way.
So candidates might enter the race again and sue in the first states that accept presidential nominations for their primary ballots, and might be granted standing. But then they will lose, badly.
The Democrats will enter the COLB. It says on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. It is a birth certificate, because it meets the definition of “birth certificate” in federal law in Section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub.L.108-434, 118 Stat. 3825, Dec. 17, 2004. It is online:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf
This definition was first introduced into the online birther debate here at the Turley Blog: Here it is in full:
SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
Contents
(a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
certificate” means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the
United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United
States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency or authorized custodian of
record and produced from birth records
maintained by such agency or custodian of
record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
Federal, State, or local government agency or
authorized custodian of record, of an original
certificate of birth issued by such agency or
custodian of record.
Section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 note):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The COLB is a “certificate” of birth, because it said on its face that any alterations of “this certificate” would render it invalid. It was issued to an individual who was a citizen at birth, not a naturalized citizen. His birth was registered in the United States, according to public statements of the responsible custodial officials.
The COLB was issued by a “State … government agency or authorized custodian of record” and it was “produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record….” In the alternative, it was ”an authenticated copy, issued by a … State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such agency or custodian of record”
So the COLB meets all of the elements of the definition of a “birth certificate.” There is no requirement for the name of the hospital or the names of any witnesses in the definition.
The burden then would shift to the birfers to provide some grounds to go behind the official certificate and the testimony of the custodial official. They would have to
(1) prove that it was a forgery or ( 2) that valid Kenyan or other birth certificates exist.
The forgery “experts” have all been shot down, and even the WorldWingNutDaily conceded last year that it was genuine. The two Kenyan birth certificates were pathetic fakes, and anyone seeking to introduce them risks perjury charges and jail time.
Obama has already complied with the proposed bill [below], and has already met any legal challenge on the merits to his right to hold office based on a challenge to his place of birth.
At this point, it is the “afterbirfers” who step up to the place. Like Leo Donofrio, they contend that Obama is ineligible even if he were in fact born in Hawaii in 1961, where he was in fact born.
“Afterbirfers” ™®C come in two flavors.
Leo’s “dual citizenship” crowd say that Obama is not “natural born” because his father was a citizen or subject of Kenya or the British Empire at the time of birth. That is the non-fat version. The full sugar version says that Obama himself was a British or Kenyan citizen or subject at birth, and cannot serve because of dual loyalties, or because he was subject to the jurisdiction of another country at birth, and maybe today.
This is sure to lose because the 14th Amendment said all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, except for children of ambassadors and of hostile occupying forces, and the Supreme Court ruled in Wong that children of aliens born in the States are just as much citizens as the children of natural born citizens. (This is the short form of the argument. It can go on for years).
Obama did have conditional Kenyan citizenship at birth, but that was dependent on his claiming it before he turned 21, and he never did so. It expired. There is nothing in the text, intent or interpreting Supreme Court cases to support Leo’s theory.
Leo is shocked, shocked that a person who was once a citizen of another country could be President and Commander in Chief. Enter a servant to give Leo his poker winnings, along with biographies of Washington and all the Presidents up to Zachary Taylor or someone, who had all been subjects of Great Britain at one time. For crying out loud, Washington had been a BRITISH GENERAL. Sputter, sputter…. Will no one in the kingdom rid me of this meddlesome pries…, um, poker player?
The other crowd of afterbirfers says both parents must be citizens, without reference to dual citizenship. Mario and Kerchner base this on the writings of Vattel, who was not a framer, and was not even American, and wrote in French or something years before the Constitution, and wasn’t even translated into English until 1797. Mike Appleton and others have demonstrated the common law, not Vattel, was the source of the meaning of the term “natural born.” It meant all babies born in the country, except babies of foreign diplomats and occupying armies.
Written predictions ™®©:
(1) Some fringe candidates may get standing in the 2012 election.
(2) The will lose on the COLB issue, since the courts will hold it valid.
(3) They will not get access to the Hawaiian records.
(4) They will lose on dual citizenship.
(5) They will lose on the two-parent requirement.
(6) They will never accept the rulings on the merits that they so longed for, and will go into the night crying “usurper.”
If the bill introduced by the Republican Congressional birthers should be passed, the courts would have to rely on the federal legal definition in Section 7211 and Title 5, since the bill amends federal law.
(a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended–
(1) by striking `and’ at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.
Again, Obama is the first potential 2012 candidate to have complied with this bill in full. Obama has produced his birth certificate. Farah and the WorldNutters are liars when they ask in billboards “Where’s the birth certificate” because Obama has already produced his birth certificate.
My birth certificate is kind of large.
They had to use a bedsheet so that my footprints would fit on it.
@Bigfoot,
So long as it is filed as a certificate of live birth then file it. Hell, where you allegedly born? Scotland? Is that part of the US?
Hell, if we can suffer stupd at W’s expense then you too can be president.
Mr. Spindell said: “Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.”
Believe me, I’m no queer, I am a polygamist, you fool. And guess what, I am not a Christian either! Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to the sectarian confusion and nonsense of Babylon the Great upheld by you. Looking at your photograph, your visage betrays that you’re a queer. I unerringly discern the motivation here: the attempt to destroy God by destroying one of his daughters.
7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words–they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.
(1 Ne 19:7)
And you so much as admitted it in your post. Queers never understand the motivation of the righteous. Contempt and righteous indignation is not fear, fool. The reason you fear the righteous so much is because deep inside of whatever humanity you have left, you have this gnawing uncertainty, a certain fearful looking for the judgment of God, an then project this fear of righteous judgment onto Orly Taitz (who is in a battle to expose a wicked and corrupt charlatan who lies every time he opens his mouth) and this in order to destroy her that your sins might remain covered. You project because you realize the enormity of the judgments that will come against you and your kind should the righteous ever gain political ascendancy as they once had at the founding of this nation, or when the judgments of God otherwise overtake you.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10:26-31)
And speaking of Barack Obama, he has the stated intention of destroying what he perceives as the ascendant white hegemony as per his own admission, hence the marshaling of Acorn to harass and intimidate bank presidents and their families to grant unwarranted and unrighteous loans to those not credit worthy, according to the rules of banking, simply because they are black, to join him the first affirmative-action president as the thrill runs up the leg of Chris Matthews.
Matt 15:26
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
Mark 7:27
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children (white and delightsome Israel) first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.
I discern him, you and Orly Taitz with righteous judgment, for I am a judge, you know it now or will know it at the last day. Plain speaking is a source of embarrassment to queerdom, hence their unceasing mockery of George W. Bush, not realizing that he was baiting you all along by feigned clumsiness, sort of like Columbo. The American people are waking up to your lies and effrontery.
I received the following revelation from Israel’s God concerning your society controlled and ruled over by queerdom:
7 For I the Lord thy God have for-ordained him, even he who was mighty and also strong, from before the foundation of the world to do my work, as in times of old, and to be a prophet unto the nation in which thou standest even at this time, for I the Lord God am no respecter of nations as well as individuals-which nation is nigh unto destruction because of the wickedness of the children of men upon the face thereof, as before the flood.
8 For as before the flood are they in their hardness of heart and blindness of mind and their wickedness and abominations which they, even they, the common man and woman, the majority, practice in that which they think is the dark in the which they say, “who is the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of whom we have heard, but do not believe, that we should fear him?”, even as before the flood, yea in their ignorance of the mysteries, and their murders, and their fornications, and their lyings, and stealings, and their mixing with the seed of Cain, the black race, and pride, and unbelief, and their fossils and their technology, and their false religions, and haughty carriage, and fashion, and education and vain looks, and their whoredoms, and their tampering with the life which I the Lord their God have given unto them, yea their birth-control as before the flood, and their psychology, and their biology and their false science, and their evolution and their technology as before the flood:
9 In the which they say as before the flood, who is the Lord God that we should fear him, for are we not a mighty nation and people, and have we not freed ourselves from the delusion of our fathers who were bound down by a vain and foolish hope of a resurrection, and this through evolution and false science, and false religions, which abound as before the flood;
10 And women’s liberation, and the officers in their swagger and bullying and the police and their magistrates who strut and lift themselves up in pride over the people, and their proud and arrogant legislatures and their lying newsmen who distort the truth for gain, and the institutions of society, know ye not O deluded prophet, there is no God, for do ye not behold the world as we who are destroyed?
11 And are we not content and happy?
12 And we fear Him not, for know ye not that we have our teachers and we have our god which guideth us and giveth us comfort in the night, and teacheth us of its ways, the ways of the world, yea, even television, and doth it not teach us the truth, for it is marvelous in our eyes, and it says nothing concerning thee or thy God who hath spoken unto thee?
13 Vain prophet do ye not see as we see, who have seen nothing, only corruption and lies, and effrontery from our god, fashion, and mad pursuit of pleasure and harlotry and we know nothing else, and do we not give lip to that which hath been passed down to us from our parents, and that which our governor tells us and Dan Rather tells us?
14 Therefor leave us as our governor, and our parents and Dan Rather and Roger Mudd and Frank Reynolds, to our fornication, and our drunkenness and our unbelief and our wickedness, or we will kill thee, as our fathers before thee killed them who dared speak of old, even thy prophets of Jacob who are deluded like unto thee, even Joseph and Hyrum.
15 And does not the majority, do they not believe as we?
16 Therefore we outnumber thee, O deluded man, and it is that if the majority see as we, are ye not in error, surely?
17 And do the rest like unto us, understand thy words, O Prophet, and where are thy converts and the hosts that should follow thee if thy words be true?
18 And thus we do not believe thy words that thou hast seen him.
19 And thus they lift themselves up in pride against me, the Lord God, who is mighty in battle, as before the flood, to the complete destruction of soul and body.
20 For it was that them before the flood obtained promise of deliverance in the resurrection from hell, which shall not be given unto this generation, saith the Lord, for thou hast also blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, O liberal man and woman, which they did not do before the flood.
21 And it is that unless ye speedily repent, ye shall be destroyed both body and soul in hell for I love the effortless fury of the battle, and the blood shall run to the bridles of the horses in that day, saith the Lord God of Pharaoh, and whose destruction unto thee, O liberal man and woman is beyond the mind of man to comprehend in the height and depth thereof, which no man knoweth save he shall be made partaker thereof.
22 Yea with the devil and his angels ye shall suffer the second death, in my fury and wrath upon thee, O man and O woman, who darest lift up thy feeble head against my legions who shall come in this day, saith the Lord God.
23 And also mine own arm which shall fall upon thee to thy destruction as before the flood, and by pestilence and plague and earthquake, as my armies which shall go through as a young lion in the midst of sheep, and the fall of thy economy, and thy utter destruction both body and soul which hangeth over thee, O man, even now, and these things are upon thee except ye repent and come unto me through him whom I have appointed for the deliverance of the righteous in these things, saith the Lord God of Joseph Smith and Hyrum, whom your fathers, O ye Gentiles killed, and rejoiced in their deaths.
24 And did I not pour out civil war upon them as punishment, even in these things, saith the Lord, to requite the blood of the prophets upon their own heads, saith the Lord God of destruction and terrible vengeance?
25 For is not all flesh in my hands that I the Lord God cannot cause that which looketh as the natural course of events unto the natural man unaided by the spirit of Revelation, but which are strong delusion which I the Lord God poured out also upon the Jews before their destruction before the Roman Eagle, in the which I the Lord God brought about their destruction easily, O man, and effortlessly by their delusion and deep sleep as to things which are real, that they perished under the sword, dreaming that their necks were stronger than the steel of the blade as it was brought down upon them, that their God would deliver them?
26 And thus I the Lord God destroyed them, even as I, the Lord God will thee, O man, and O woman, for I the Lord God am the author of life and of death from before the foundation of the world, and was not the flood murder unto thee, O liberal man and woman whom I loath, saith the Lord, for thou hast provoked me, the Lord Thy God as before the flood, with thy haughtiness and wickedness.
27 And where is thy police that can deliver thee, O man, from me?
28 For they are full of iniquity also, saith the Lord, and are worse than them whom they persecute, and have participated in the shedding of innocent blood, even that of John Singer, saith the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
29 And it is for these things a curse hath been placed upon the land, as before the flood to thy utter destruction, both body and soul.a
30 But it is my will, saith the Lord, that thou shouldest pray unto me in thy secret places concerning these things, and I the Lord thy God will answer thy prayer unto me, and will fill even thy frame with such power from regions of light and glory and might and power, that it is impossible that thy tongue, O man, can express the power thereof, that ye may have a witness from me, even Jesus of Nazereth that these things are true, and that I the Lord God have appointed him and all who would receive me, even the Lord thy God, when it is that I shall come with my Holy Angels to reap down even the earthb upon which thou standest, must receive him, or it is that they must all be cut off from my presence, even forever and everc, worlds without end.
31 Even so, I the Lord God have spoken it and so it shall come to pass.
32 For it is that no man knoweth the things of God, save it be by the Spirit of God.
33 And all the preachments of men, save they shall be given by the inspiration of the Comforter are of no efficacy or value unto the souls of the children of men for their salvation, saith the Lord.
34 For why is it, saith the Lord, that ye require the Gateway spoken of to be narrow when it was that I the Lord God did send unto that stiffnecked and unbelieving generation even John, named the Baptist, and that it be broad unto you, O ye generation of vipers like unto them?
35 For as it was then, even so it is now, for I the Lord God am no respecter of persons or generations, and am the same yesterday, today, and forever, and because I the Lord God send unto you one gift, ye need not suppose that I cannot send another, for he it is that was with me from the beginning and reserved that he should come unto thee at this time for thy salvation, both temporally and spiritually, for he it is that was mighty before the foundation of the world for the defeat of Lucifer, even at this time, saith the Lord, and has stood upon my right hand in reserve, from before the foundation of the world as my mighty one who should be held in reserve to do battle for mine honor and my name upon the earth against mine enemies, both in the flesh and the spirit, saith the Lord God, that they may know of my power which shall be manifest when ye are gathered unto him, O Israel, such as has not been seen since Moses and Enoch.
36 And it is that because that none of you have faith and intelligence and knowledge sufficient to pull down answers from that region of light, that ye cry blasphemy as the Jews, when it was that I sent mine Only Begotten unto them, O ye stiffnecked and unbelieving generation!
37 And he it is that I have sent at this time shall be the means of baptizing this generation also for a remission of sins, by mine authority, that they too shall receive baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost by the laying on of his hands as anciently.
38 And thus it is that my people shall once again worship me in Spirit and in truth as anciently, that I the Father of Heaven and earth may once more take up my abode upon the earth, as in the Garden before the fall, yea, of Eden.
39 And this is the only true gospel which is and shall be recognized by the heavens as anciently.
40 For I the Lord his God have covenanted with him that all who come unto me, even his Father, must come unto me as in the manner of old.
41 For I, his Father must am no respecter of persons.
42 For it was that I his Father did send in mine Only Begotten unto that generation and that generation only, and in this generation, there is a second witness of me, the Father, of equal weight and validity and power and might before me, as mine Only Begotten son, for out of the mouths of two witnesses shall every word be established, which thing is my law, saith the Lord, for by these two, who are mine, will I the Father who art greater in might than they all, shall judge the earth upon which thou standest.
43 For his is of Ephraimc, and mine Only Begotten is Judah, and who is greater before me, saith the Father?
44 And in this generation all who would come unto me must receive him who was Mighty and Strong from before the foundation of the world.
45 For I did send mine Only Begotten unto them, because ye, O Ephraim, were scattered among the nations, therefor it is that I the Father have sent Him also unto thee, that he stand also upon my right hand with me in my power, for he hath also descended with mine Only Begotten, below all things, and hath also drunk out of that bitter cup, for all things have also been stripped from him except his life, and even that hath hung in the balance, saith the Father.
46 And thus are we not one, yea one in doctrine, and mind and spirit, but not one in body, O man?
47 And this because of his intelligence, for light cleaveth unto light and intelligence, saith the Lord, unto intelligence.
48 And there were none greater in intelligence among the sons of God from before the foundation of the world, that Satan could not deceive him as he hath thee, O man, with his lies and cunning craftiness and thy unstable mind and heart, yea for his intelligence, which is the light of truth, he cannot be deceived by him, saith the Lord, and he is the stone spoken of by Isaiah in the 28th chapter, which should be laid in Sion, tried and precious by me, his Father.
49 Thus ye have a sure anchor for thy soul and ye may rely upon him as a sure guide for thee from me, and he will lead thee, my sheep into green pastures, where no ravening wolf can enter in, for he guardeth the gate and will destroy him for thee that thy life be spared, O man, and O woman, and if ye hearken and be obedient unto him in all things, ye shall be delivered from death and that devil and that yawning abyss of hell which jaws gape wide open the mouth that ye descend thereunto, if ye repent not before me, saith the Father, for I will not be mocked.The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 24.
Art, if you are not a Christian, why are you pasting up “The Revelations of Jesus Christ,” you damn polygamist? Keep MY NAME out of your hate-filled rants, thank you very much. I am returning, and your sorry ass is the first one I will find.
To all preparing a dive on Art Bulla (you’ll be going DEEP), monitor your time and depth appropriately. Oh and please remember your decompression stop strategies when you commence a slow ascent.
I think Prof. Turley should initiate a troll tax for postings that exceed 3,000 words. Maybe the fines collected could go to help pay for the health care reform.
“Believe me, I’m no queer, I am a polygamist, you fool. And guess what, I am not a Christian either! Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to the sectarian confusion and nonsense of Babylon the Great upheld by you. Looking at your photograph, your visage betrays that you’re a queer. I unerringly discern the motivation here: the attempt to destroy God by destroying one of his daughters.”
Art,
A polygamist no less and not a Christian, but a user of Christian philosophy. You call me a queer to. how precious. Also how sad for your wives that they are stuck with a delusional man. The truth is you could have a dozen wives and still be a homosexual. It’s what’s inside your mind and those hidden desires that make it so. All I know is that any man who is so threatened and disgusted by homosexuals must have that kind of problem. If you were such a great heterosexual, why would you care as much as you seem to do. Your fear and loathing gives you away and you belief that the Deity would speak to one such as you and proclaimed the vile hatred you profess is sadly delusional.
Mike S:
“Also how sad for your wives that they are stuck with a delusional man.”
**************
I think you jumped the gun on this one. Art Bulla said he was a polygamist. He never said anything about human wives. I am betting a goat, two mules, and a very sassy aardvark. Why do you think you can’t covet another man’s wife, ox, or ass as stated in Rule Ten. Seems we have an equivalence for the Bible thumping crowd. Tread softly here.
Maybe hogs and pigs:
Hogamous, Pigamous,
Man is polygamous
Pigamous, hogamous
Woman monogamous.
– traditional, author unknown.
Or he may only believe in polygamy, but not practice it, making him a polygamist who can’t polyg.
I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity. Jesus said that the “weightier matter of the law” is judgment. We are here to correctly judge between good and evil, and if there is a shiver all the away through our beings because our conscience has been compromised by accommodating evil, by committing crimes against nature, then the light of the eye is darkness, and it would have been better that we had never been born.
20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(2 Ne 15:20)
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!
(Matt 6:23)
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.
(Luke 11:34)
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
(John 3:19-21)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(Isa 5:20)
If our judgment is suborned by wickedness, then we become literally a devil in human form. These are called “sons of perdition” in the Scriptures. There is no forgiveness for them, for they must, of necessity deny and blaspheme even against the Holy Ghost to maintain a cover for their depravity! But the result upon society of these individuals, especially if they gain political influence, and influence in the schools of our nation, is the destruction of that society or nation. this is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, saith the Lord. Persecution is heaped upon Orly Taitz, and the Lord himself is crucified afresh and put to an open shame. The fate of these individuals so involved, saith the Lord, is the second death. We all know of the first death, but it is the second one that you should be concerned about. You may think that this is just a rhetorical attempt to frighten you, but I assure you that it is not.
As Jesus of Nazareth said,
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Matt 10:28)
We are spirits clothed in flesh and bones. We know where the flesh and bones come from, we have parents. But the spirit has parents also, literally. This parentage and existence was before birth for many millennia, our memory of all was blotted out before coming here except for these intimations spoken of by Wordsworth.
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home: William Wordsworth, Intimations on Immortality
For those who commit the kind of sins that we are speaking of here, which are unpardonable there is a second death which is the total annihilation of the spirit back to its native element, or dissolution. This may take many millennia of indescribable suffering to accomplish. It is literally devoured by devils who are more powerful, in the world to come. This fate is to be avoided at all costs. As Chairman Mao said, all politics comes from the barrel of a gun, but Jesus said to fear not him, then when he kill the body that is all that he (Chairman Mao) and those like him can do. So real power belongs to those who are able to bring these punishments about. Men obey laws because of the fear they have of punishment. How much more should we obey the law of God and live, because the punishment is indescribable.
Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:
“Mercy cannot rob justice.”
“Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:
“Mercy cannot rob justice.”
———————————
I am a conservative and I know what kind of punishment I would like to mete A.Bull.
OT:
Vince,
Asimov estate approves “new” Robot story. I hope this grave robbing exercise works out better than what they have planned for Douglas Adams.
http://www.keepingthedoor.com/2009/10/30/asimov-estate-authorises-i-robot-sequels/
Buddha,
Are you back full force de jure?
BiL, wow. Interesting discussion at the linked site. I’m mixed. Dr. A did authorize some sequels, but not all of them turned out well. Wait and see.
Art Bulla:
as a conservative, I think you are wrong. I think most liberals, at least the ones on this site, just want controlling people out of their lives.
“I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity.”
In my mind and that of most human beings polygamy is the height of sexual depreavity. In your case “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” be the maxim when talking about sexual depravity.
Buddha,
Thanks for the link I’m bookmarking that site. Good stuff. As for Douglas Adams, are they really thinking about the same? The idea of a new writer picking up from a master is just money driven greed. As the articles author stated Imagine hiring someone to continue Rembrandt’s work.
Now in the case of Jordan’s “Wheel of Time Series” where the author died before completion and “supposedly” left copious notes I can see the sense. However, truthfully, Jordan was just milking the the story by his Seventh book and stringing it out for the money. Authors of course are entitled to increase their bottom line, but when it becomes like “Wheel of Time” it shows the loss of artistic vision. I became bored with it, but would continue reading to get to the denouement. However, now I read that the designated Jordan author and Tor are planning three more books and i’ll do myself the favor of imagining my own ending.
Art Bulla:
and Joseph Smith is a paragon of virtue concerning sexual mores? Are you smoking crack?
Isn’t the Mormon religion the one where any Mormon can become god? Come to think of it, you are smoking more than just crack, you are high on delusions of grandeur.
Buddha,
I haven’t read “And Another Thing…” (the new Hitch-hiker’s book) yet, I take it that you don’t like it?
Mike S,
Douglas Adams’ widow picked someone to write a sixth Hitchhiker’s book because Douglas thought (correctly) that the fifth book was bleak and wanted the series to end on a better note. I have no problem with this (although as I mentioned, I haven’t read the book yet). I’m somewhat more nervous about the prospect of a new Robot book, but I’ll give it a chance.
Mike, Slart and Buddha
Jordan was milking the story from book four on, I gave up at five. I’m pretty sure he spent more time checking his continuity notes than working on the actual plot at that point.
As for as the Adams sequel goes, my understanding (from an interview with the new author) is that the author was contacted by the Adams estate. He decided that it would be literary suicide to try and write an “Adams” book, so he wrote an ending to the story that he thought Adams would have liked in his (the new author’s) style. He is completely honest with the fact that he’s not a substitute for Adams, but is instead doing a homage at the request of the family of one of his favorite authors. I’m withholding judgment until I read it.
Gyges,
My understanding is the same as yours – and Mr. Colfer wrote the book (titled “And Another Thing…” – gotta love a title with an ellipsis…) at the behest of Jane Belson, Douglas Adams’ widow. As someone who reveres Douglas Adams (as witnessed by my name), I’m very excited at the prospect of a final (I would hope) Hitchhikers book and the author has said all the right things. I think there is a big difference between finishing a series that the author intended to finish before he died and adding a new trilogy onto a series which is essentially complete on it own.
Mike & Slarti,
I have not yet read “And Another Thing . . .”, however, the prospect of it fills me with more dread than a new Robot tale. The reason is simply that as a feat of writing, it’s easier to ape Asimov than Adams because stylistically Douglas’ voice was 1) more flamboyant than Asimov and 2) comedic. To me, comedy is a genre that is so dependent on aesthetic and timing/pacing that it is intrinsically difficult to mimic successfully. Beginning S/F (or any genre specific) writers often start by writing that mimics what they like to read. A really good writer can do so and not sound derivative. But comedy is different because it is so “voice” dependent. Asimov, brilliant as he was, was pretty straight forward in terms of art as a writer. I don’t mean this as an insult and I don’t think Issac would take it this way when I describe him as “utilitarian”. It would be harder, for example, to ape Gene Wolfe than an Asimov or a Clarke if you want to stay in genre. Wolfe has a very distinctive style. Even taking into account that it’s a comedy hybrid, Douglas Adams was a lot of things stylistically, but utilitarian wasn’t one of them. If you try to write like him – because his voice is both distinctive and comic – there is a distinct chance that you’ll come off sounding like a bad Douglas Adams impersonation. This is not unique in comedy. Rarely can one mimic others style so well as to gain notoriety – the two exceptions that come to mind being Hal Holbrooke’s Twain and Gabe Kaplan’s Groucho and those are Broadway examples (because I cannot think of a successful literary example). I am skeptical of a new Robot story. I am afraid of a new Arthur Dent story. Almost as much as I’d be afraid of a “new” tale of Dr. Gonzo and his steadfast yet demented and depraved Samoan attorney. Maybe it’s just me.
Buddha,
The author of “And Another thing…” agrees with you, he didn’t write a book trying to be Douglas Adams, he wrote a book he thought Adams might like.
I talked to a friend on the force in the Time Patrol about sending some Agents back to smother these sequels-by-successors in the cradle.
It turns out that they believe in the Free Market, and expect the Invisible Hand to take care of these efforts. It seems that Natural Selection based on the Survival of the Fittest will allow the Gold to settle out permanently, while the Dross is washed away. They are very firm on the First Amendment.
In the meantime, I have found that the best 21stC SFers are now the Brits, led by Charles Stross and Alistair Reynolds. I just finished House of Suns, and half of Transition. This stuff is All-Galactic, great New Space Opera. I have read all of Reynolds, and most of Stross, and they never disappoint.
NY Timester Paul Krugman, is a fan of Asimov, especially FoundationX3, and he has now signed on with a jacket endorsement for Stross’s Merchant Princes series (be sure to start at the start with Family Trade), and I agree.
Buddha,
Have faith and be not afraid – Colfer says he tried to write in the spirit of Adams, not to mimic him, and considering how well that worked in the movie (which was different than all of the other incarnations of Hitchhikers and very my in the spirit of DA, in my opinion), I’m cautiously optimistic. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one else can credibly pick up Hunter’s gonzo pen, though. Now excuse me, I’ve got to go find some raw ether and quaaludes…
Aye, I’ll not quibble it is their right Vince, but I posit the same question I posit to scientists – “Just because you can do something, does it mean that should you?” Capacity does not correlate to desired outcome. Need I say more than Star Trek: Voyager? I may have come off as a doomsayer for derivative work and that is not true. I rather liked it when Larry Niven let other writers play in his universe in the various “Man-Kzin War” titles. And while I have not read any of the new Foundation stories, I do rather like some of the Gardner penned Bond novels. But I say what I said as being specific to comedy and I’ll stick to it – the chances of success are slim as to be approaching zero if they want an “Adams” book. If the book stands, as Gyges says, as an independent tale of its own written with Adams as the target audience? That could work. Well, if you discount the “dead” part of the demographic that could work.
I cannot say I have read all of Reynolds but I can say most. I concur that his Revelations universe tales never disappoint, even the disturbing novella “Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days”. Right now I’m preparing to dive into the Manifold series by Stephen Baxter. I read one of them out of sequence (Exultant) and was as impressed with him as I was with Reynolds. I think Baxter’s Xeelee may be one of the more compelling alien species in the field.
Vince,
Your comment reminded me of a very amusing short story (sort of). Enjoy.
p.s. Did you see the latest about O-bot spying and psyops at the post & email?
Vince,
Here’s a link to Stross’s blog. Based on that I’m definitely checking out his fiction, at some point in the future.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/
I love the post “How habitable is the Earth?”
Slarti,
I will stipulate that I was not deeply offended by the HGTTG film and felt it to be in the spirit of the books within the structural confines of a screenplay. I’ll even go so far as to say Sam Rockwell was perfect casting for Zaphod. As much as some authors whine about “Hollywood butchered my work”, rarely is that strictly true. Screenplays ARE different from novels and any writer honest with themselves should be honest about this fact. Alan Moore has been both right about this (V for Vendetta is a simple and worst – simplistic – shadow of the book) and wrong about this (Watchmen, as good a job making that into a film as possible even though I didn’t agree with the need to change the ending. My reactions to the LOTR films is similar.). I’ll try not to rush to judgment on a new HHTTG book given I now know they are not trying to accomplish the practically impossible. I will still, however, approach with caution.
Buddha,
Fred Saberhagen opened up the Berzerker series and published a book of short stories (Including stories by Larry Niven, Roger Zelazny, and Stephen R. Donaldson (another of my favorite authors)). I think this setting (like the Man-Kzin wars) is ideal for this sort of thing, and I agree with you that comedy is much harder, but I think that Colfer is in the best possible position to make it work.
Buddha,
In fairness to other stories made into movies, HHGTTG is about one-third the length of say, LotR and already had four other versions (I think) that were all different from each other (meaning there were very few scenes that HAD to be in the movie). LotR did many things really well (and the cinematography was incredible), but then something will happen like Aragorn drawing a SWORD at Weathertop and I’ll go apoplectic – and don’t even get me started about the Harry Potter movies…
Slart,
I was actually thankful for all the changes in LOTR. A straight line by line adaptation would have been WAY too long, and boring. Think of how much time Tolkien spent on traveling and back stories. “It’s the journey and not the destination” story telling doesn’t generally work all that well for big budget special effects fests like LOTR needed to be. Of course, I never cared much for Tolkien anyway, so I’m biased.
Contrast that with “Bubba Ho-tep,” which is incredibly faithful to the Lansdale story. It works well because it’s a much more dialog driven story then anything Tolkien wrote. Not to mention it has the advantage of being a short story, which tend to focus less on explanation and more on mood and atmosphere. Plus, a retired Elvis fighting a mummy just makes for good watching.
Evil twin Vince from Alternate Universe seized computer and garbled my transmission. Iain M. Banks is the author of Transition, out this year, and an excellent alternate universe yarn in every respect up as far as I have read through page 250. So my parlay on the Big Three is Banks, Reynolds and Stross.
Or this may be a brain problem, so I will have to resort to my do-it-yourself brain-surgery kit ordered on the Internet. All spare excised tissue has been promised by JT to NAL. “A rind is a terrible thing to taste.”
BiL, everyone here has to get together and coin a name for these “afterauthors.” They resemble athletes trying to make comebacks. They never succeed. August Derleth kept putting out Lovecraft sequels, and encouraging others, but it is HPL, and only HPL, who is now deservedly in the Library of America. Howard’s Conan was ripped off like that. Harlan Ellison did a story in F&SF 30 years back on the subject.
The sequeelers (rhymes with squealers) have to be told: “With great power comes great responsibility. You can’t do everything. You’re not Superman.”
Gyges, great site!
Slart, a great story!
I had the Time Patrol send an agent back to the 20’s to guide Adolph to Sigmund Freud for full psychoanalysis in Vienna. Adolph became a science fiction writer, famous for his novel The Iron Dream, published under the name Norman Spinrad.
As a Celt, I should be careful with the label “Brit.” Stross is now a Scot living in Edinburgh, although born in Leeds. Reynolds is Welsh, living near Cardiff. Banks is a Scot living near Forth Bridge.
See, also, Ken McLeod and Peter F. Hamilton.
Vince,
My view on athletes is that great players have the right to decide when to call it quits – if you want to be a Barry Sanders or Jim Brown and leave the game on top, fine, and if you want to be like Bret Favre and keep playing until your 102, that’s fine, too. (I don’t know if you can call it a comeback, but so far, I don’t think anyone in Minnesota is complaining about Farve.) I like the name sequeelers, and I agree that their works shouldn’t become cannon unless they are accepted by the fans (whatever that means).
Gyges,
It’s not what they cut out of LotR that bothers me (and you are right, a lot had to be cut to make an entertaining movie, it’s when important things are changed for no good reason that bothers me. I haven’t seen Bubba Ho-Tep yet, but as I am a Bruce Campbell fan (Hail to the King, baby), it’s on my list of movies to see.
Vince,
You should know better. I’ve had your agent stopped before he could intervene – don’t do it again!
Slart,
I figure Jackson was trying to remove as much of the Arthurian elements as possible from Aragorn’s character. Movies can’t handle as much complexity as novels can. Especially psuedo-mythical novels like Tolkien wrote. By placing Aragorn in a less central role, Jackson was able to emphasize Tolkien’s theme that it wasn’t the powerful legends that made the difference, but the goodness of the simple folk. I think Tolkien overplayed his hand a little by making the Hobbits caricatures like he did.
The Ellison story was “All the Lies That Are My Life,” F&SF, Nov. 1980, Hugo nominee, collected in Shatterday: “a writer attends the funeral & reading of the will of a fellow writer & friend … might be described as fiction about science fiction …is the most intensely personal.” The writer in his will expressed his dread that scavengers would keep on churning out new versions of his works. Harlan will read the opening part of it to you at:
http://www.sundancechannel.com/digital-shorts/#/series/20958611001/20977197001
Gyges, yeah, Charlton concluded that Obots might be snooping on you and using psycop tactics to manipulate you unknowingly, based on evidence that this snooping is being done by an obot who lives within 10 minutes of the founder of Snopes.com. Comments came from an IP in the town adjacent to the address of the registrant of Snopes.
Truly crazy.
Art Bulla: “The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.”
You tell me this town ain’t got no heart.
Well, well, well, you can never tell.
The sunny side of the street is dark.
Well, well, well, you can never tell.
Maybe that’s cause it’s midnight, in the dark of the moon besides.
Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
You know you got such dark eyes!
Nothin’ shakin’ on Shakedown Street. Used to be the heart of town.
Don’t tell me this town ain’t got no heart. You just gotta poke around.
Big long article at HuffPo by Terry Krepel on WorldNutOrly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/worldnetdaily-cant-stop-w_b_341684.html
What a great SF discussion, I feel like I’m home. I love Stross and think he is very, very, good, but my favorite writer today is another Scotsman, Richard K. Morgan. Read “Market Forces” and the three Takeshi Kovacs books, sublime fiction and a wealth of really interesting things to ponder about humanity’s future.
While I like Asimov a lot, I absolutely love Adams writing.
To have either of them “continued” is to me little more than greed. To again use a version of the analogy shall we hire someone to add to the list of Mozart’s music? What about an updated sequel to Lennon’s Imagine? No good.
One other point re: Asimove v. Adams. The laws of robotics were genius and the Foundation series a masterwork, but “Goodbye and thanks for all the fish” is to me one of the wittiest lines ever written. Also in a recent 911 hospital trip last week, I’m fine now, all I kept thinking to myself was “Don’t Panic,” which made me smile and the EMT’s told me they almost never had patients who were in the throes of what I had, who seemed to deal with it so well. “Foundation” may stimulate my brain, but “Hitchhiker” helps keep me alive.
Финансовые рынки. Работа, обучение. – Профессиональное обучение трейдеров
Профессиональная помощь трейдерам на форекс, ежедневные стратегии бесплатно, торговые сигналы forex, обучение торговле на Forex, Форекс в Одессе, Одесса
The Indiana Court of Appeals is right on the money. Today they handed down the case of Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of Indiana, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Tho pro se plaintiffs sued the Governor for failing to block the Electoral Votes for Obama. The trial court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court discussed the merits of the claim that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two United States citizens. It rejected the claim outright.
It correctly relied on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, ruling that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.
There was another big loss for the birthers in the Third Circuit. The dismissal of Attorney Phil Berg’s case was affirmed.
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-4340
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, Appellant
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a BARRY OBAMA, a/k/a BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a BARRY DUNHAM; THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE; THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PEDRO A. CORTÉS, Secretary of the Commonwealth in his official capacity; DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Chairman of the U.S. Senate, Commission on Rules and Administration in her official capacity; U.S. SENATE, COMMISSION ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION; and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-08-cv-04083) District Judge: Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 26, 2009
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Philip Berg, a lawyer acting pro se, filed this action challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States. The District Court dismissed Berg’s action on the grounds that he lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim.
I.
Before the 2008 presidential election, Berg sued then- Presidential candidate Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission, among others, alleging that Obama was ineligible to run for and serve as President because he was born in Kenya and therefore is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution .[1] Berg sought, in relevant part, a declaratory judgment that Obama was ineligible, an injunction barring Obama from running for that office, and an injunction barring the Democratic National Committee from nominating him.
Although Berg brought a grab-bag of claims before the District Court, he appeals only the dismissal of those brought under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[2] The District Court – assuming the factual allegations made by Berg to be true for the purposes of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims – dismissed the first claim because “[t]he alleged harm to voters [like Berg] stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirement[s] of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to . . . satisfy Article III standing,” App. at 15, and dismissed the § 1983 claim because the “Natural Born Citizen Clause does not confer an individual right on citizens or voters,” App. at 23.
[1] That clause states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4.
[2] In the “Issues Presented” section of Berg’s brief, issue nine is whether the District Court erred in “dismissing [Berg’s] claims under Promissory Estoppel [by holding that] the DNC . . . and Obama’s promise[s] to uphold the United States Constitution are simply statements of principle and intent in the political realm and are not enforceable promises[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 3. Berg does not mention his promissory estoppel theory again, let alone explain why the District Court’s holding was in error. In any event, the District Court was certainly correct that “[f]ederal courts . . . are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric.” App. at 35.
Berg filed a notice of appeal and moved this court for an “emergency” injunction to stay the presidential election of November 4, 2008 pending resolution of that appeal. We declined to stay the election, noting that it appeared that Berg lacked standing and thus failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.[3]
Obama won the election and Berg subsequently made another “emergency” motion, asking this court to issue an order prohibiting the certification of electors by the governors of each state, to stay the members of the Electoral College from casting their votes for Obama, and to stay the counting of electoral votes in Congress. We also denied that motion, reiterating Berg’s apparent lack of standing and also stating that Berg’s lawsuit seemed to present a non-justiciable political question.
The electoral votes have since been cast without objection to Obama’s qualifications by any members of Congress, and Obama was inaugurated. Berg nonetheless persists in this litigation.
[3] On the day that we denied Berg’s motion, he petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and applied to Justice Souter, who was at the time the Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, for an injunction to stay the November 2008 election. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and Justice Souter denied the application for an injunction.
II.
We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is plenary. Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Because the Defendants’ challenge to subject matter jurisdiction was a “facial” one, we will accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Id. It is Berg’s burden to establish his standing. FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 838 (3d Cir. 1996).
We note that most of Berg’s arguments on appeal were not made before the District Court and rest on facts that did not exist when his complaint was filed, i.e., Obama’s election and the casting of the electoral votes without objection. Ordinarily, we would not reach such arguments. See United States v. Anthony Dell’Aquilla, Enters. & Subsidiaries, 150 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, an issue not raised in district court will not be heard on appeal.”) (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571 n.4 (1992) (“The existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint is filed.” (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 830 (1989))). In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this case – which is one of a series of cases brought challenging the qualifications of the 2008 presidential candidates from both of the major political parties [4] – and the obvious lack of any merit in Berg’s contentions, we will exercise our discretion and address them to put some finality to the dispute.
4 See, e.g., Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179, 181 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. 2008) (dismissing challenge to Obama’s eligibility), aff’d, 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (summary affirmance); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 68 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing challenge to Senator John McCain’s eligibility); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing challenge to McCain’s qualifications). These cases have been denominated by the press as “birther” cases.
In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[W]hen the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).
We consider first the District Court’s holding that Berg’s status as a voter did not provide him standing to challenge Obama’s candidacy.5 The District Court held that “a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.” App. at 19. Berg specifies no error in the District Court’s reasoning. Instead, he merely asserts, generally, that he was somehow harmed by each state having “plac[ed] [Obama] on the ballot when there were substantial questions concerning his citizenship status . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 17.
Berg’s worry that Obama, if elected, might someday be removed from office was not an injury cognizable in a federal court because it was based on speculation and was contingent on future events. As a practical matter, Berg was not directly injured because he could always support a candidate he believed was eligible. See Becker v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d 381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000) (no cognizable injury to voters when they can still cast for preferred candidate), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001); Gottlieb v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (no harm to voters who could support the candidate of their choice); Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68; cf. Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 621 (injury to voters’ ability to influence the political process too speculative for purposes of standing).
[5] Although the defendants argue that this point is moot because the election is over, we consider the issue because “[t]his controversy, like most election cases, fits squarely within the ‘capable of repetition yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” Merle v. United States, 351 F.3d 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2003).
Berg’s wish that the Democratic primary voters had chosen a different presidential candidate, and his dissatisfaction that they apparently did not credit the evidence he tendered, do not state a legal harm. Similarly, Berg’s angst that the presence on the ballot of an ineligible candidate might lessen the chances that an eligible candidate might win was a non-cognizable derivative harm. See Crist v. Comm’n on Pres. Debates, 262 F.3d 193, 195 (2d Cir. 2001) (agreeing that “a voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm . . . is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.”); Becker, 230 F.3d at 390; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622.
Even if we assume that the placement of an ineligible candidate on the presidential ballot harmed Berg, that injury, including any frustration Berg felt because others refused to act on his view of the law, was too general for the purposes of Article III: Berg shared both his “interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws,” and the objective uncertainty of Obama’s possible removal, pari passu with all voters; and the relief he sought would have “no more directly and tangibly benefit[ed] him than . . . the public at large.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see also Crist, 262 F.3d at 195; Becker, 230 F.3d at 389- 90; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622; Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68 (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that Senator McCain was ineligible to be President under the Natural Born Citizen Clause); Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that the Twelfth Amendment barred electors from voting for President George Walker Bush and Vice President Cheney), aff’d, Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000) (summary affirmance), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001); cf. Cohen, 2008 WL 5191864 at *1 (dismissing citizen challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1146-47 (dismissing elector’s suit challenging McCain’s eligibility).
Now that the election is over, Berg’s stake in the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency is shared by an even greater number of people, i.e., all 300 million-plus U.S. citizens, whether voters or not. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 441-42 (2007) (Colorado voters lacked standing to assert that a provision of the Colorado Constitution violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222 (1974) (citizens lacked standing to litigate under the Incompatibility Clause the eligibility of members of Congress to serve simultaneously in the military reserves); Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937) (per curiam) (private individual lacked standing to invoke judicial power to determine validity of Justice Black’s appointment to the Supreme Court).
The essence of Berg’s complaint is that the defendants, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress – a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obama’s eligibility through various means – have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990).
Berg also argues that he has standing “under the Tenth Amendment because the power to determine the qualifications of the President-elect is left to the states and the people after the Congressmen and Senators failed to object to the counting of the electoral votes” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15 – a statute that provides a mechanism for members of Congress to object to electoral votes after they are cast. Appellant’s Br. at 18. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., amend. X. That clause has no apparent relevance to this case and Berg’s citation to Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), is not helpful.
In Gregory, the Supreme Court upheld a state’s ability to determine the qualifications for its state judiciary. Id. at 455-56. The plaintiffs were state court judges who alleged that the section of the Missouri Constitution mandating that they retire at the age of seventy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 456. The Gregory opinion does not mention the word “standing,” and Berg’s citation to it is inapposite.
Berg also cites to Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147, for the proposition that he should be granted “automatic standing.” Appellant’s Br. at 2. The reference is baffling. The district court in Robinson held that an elector pledged to Alan Keyes lacked standing to bring a suit challenging Senator McCain’s qualifications under the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Id. at 1146-47. Berg cites to the following language of that opinion: “Judicial review [of the claim]-if any-should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Id. at 1147. Berg incorrectly takes that to mean that he can bring suit after members of Congress have declined to object pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15. It means no such thing. The language is part of an alternative holding made in anticipation of the “plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party . . . be allowed to intervene.” Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147. The Court held, in the alternative, that, even assuming that the American Independent Party had standing, the claim was unripe. Id. (citing Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998)).
Berg maintains that he has suffered damage to his reputation as a result of bringing this suit – he claims that he has been accused of being a racist by unnamed others. This “injury” is not attributed to the Defendants. Berg’s assertion that he has been harmed because he has spent money on this lawsuit fails for the same reason; the Defendants’ efforts to legally defend themselves cannot cause injury that gives rise to Article III standing or the doctrine would have no meaning. Berg’s passing reference that he was injured because he was denied some “information concerning the qualifications of Obama” was made in a vacuum, providing this court with no basis to analyze the claim.
Berg asserts that the District Court erred in denying him standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 because of a lack of state action. State action is not one of the three elements of standing. See Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. In any event, the District Court did not rely on a lack of state action to dismiss his case. See App. at 23-24 n.14.
Among the litany of Berg’s claims is his argument that he was injured when the “President of the Senate failed to call for objections during the counting of the electoral votes from each state . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 28. Berg supplies no factual basis for that assertion and we have no idea if it is true, but, assuming it is, Berg has been no more injured by that omission than any other United States citizen. Berg alternatively argues that he has standing because his First Amendment rights were somehow violated when his political representatives failed to object to the electoral votes cast in Obama’s favor, as he wished them to. That argument is frivolous. Berg’s final claim that the District Court violated his due process rights by dismissing his case is equally frivolous.
“Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiff’s claims, and they must be dismissed.”[6] Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.
6 Berg’s arguments that the District Court ignored some of his voluminous motions and other pleadings not only suffer from fatal defects in their reasoning, but are irrelevant. If a District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss.
III.
Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action.
Ok, here is the latest skinny on Orly. She told the Columbus GA paper she has no intention of laying 20 Grand on Judge Land.
The Judge shot back by putting out a contract on Orly’s head. The full order [from the indefatigable Justin Elliott at Josh Marshall’s TPM] read as follows: “Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009. ”
Judge Land wanted the fine donated to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning. The Government defendant has come out against this, as it “it is the government’s position that the monetary sanction imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz must be paid to the United States Treasury.” The full brief is at the excellent Native and Natural Born Citizen site:
[The links will show up just as soon as they clear moderation].
Here is Justin’s: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/judge_directs_us_attorney_to_collect_20k_from_orly.php?ref=fpb
News – Breaking News
Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009
Birther attorney Orly Taitz: ‘I have no intention of paying’ $20,000 sanction
BY ALAN RIQUELMY –
California attorney Orly Taitz, facing a $20,000 sanction from the federal judge presiding over the Mark Shelnutt trial, said on the payment’s deadline that she had no intention of paying.
“Absolutely not,” Taitz said Thursday afternoon when asked whether she would pay. “I have filed an appeal. It was a complete abuse of power.”
….
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/906241.html
When the court fines you for wasting their time, I’m pretty sure they don’t mean its optional.
I intend to watch as she racks up even greater fines through the appeals process.
I intend to laugh every time something like one of her witnesses coming forward to claim Taitz suborned perjury.
I intend to laugh all the way to watching her get cuffed.
Then I’m going to laugh some more.
Because some train wrecks are funny.
Well, I can only assume that mail-order law ‘degrees’ do not afford discussions of primary topics such as ‘Legal Jeopardy.’
Appreciate the updates.
Orly, Orly, Orly, here comes Orly. Fasten your seatbelts. This jabberwocky was filed today, November 13, 2009, believe it or don’t:
QUOTE
Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and request a judicial notice of the holding in the Berg v Obama et al. 08-43-40 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third District judges Sloviter, Fuentes and Hardiner. Opinion written by judge Sloviter. While this case lingered in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a year or so, by stroke of providence, the opinion came down yesterday, November 12, 2009, only a couple of days after the undersigned has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. While this three judge panel confirmed the dismissal of the underlying case by the district court, noting that a voter does not have standing, as his injuries are generalized, a number of holdings of this case are pertinent and determinative for the current case in front of your Honor and confirm legal reasoning provided by the undersigned counsel in her Motion for Reconsideration.
The plaintiff in Berg was seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen and under 42 USC §1983, seeking determination of eligibility for presidency of Barack Husein [sic] Obama. In his opinion judge Sloviter finds that though the election is over, the court has jurisdiction to hear it as it “fits squarely” as an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review” Merle v US, 351, 3d 92,94 (3d Cir 2003) Based on this argument there is Article 3 jurisdiction to hear the case as long as the plaintiff can show standing with specialized injury. While Berg’s holding finds that a regular voter does not have standing, Presidential and vice presidential candidates such as plaintiffs Ambassador Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot have standing. Judge Sloviter proceeds by arguing that both parties with actual and imminent injuries would have standing in this case. Nearly 40 plaintiffs in this case are members of the military. A number of them are either active military or in active reserves. For example plaintiff Lita Lott is in active drilling reserves. Within only a few days of notice she will be required to leave her family behind and deploy, this can happen any day. This satisfies the imminent injury prong for the purpose of standing. Plaintiff Matthew Michael Edwards is in the National Guard and would be required to deploy on a few days notice, therefore satisfying the imminent injury prong. It is important to note that previously the defendants in current case requested judicial Notice of Rhodes v. MacDonald, which incorporates Cook v Good. Notice of appeal for both cases has been filed in 11th circuit court of Appeals. Both cases were brought by the undersigned counsel in front of Judge Land in Middle district of GA. In the first case Cook v Good the undersigned argued precisely that point, that this is an issue “capable of repetition but evading review”. The only difference being that the undersigned has brought forward Roe v Wade as a controlling authority, and judge Sloviter is understandably using Merle v US out of the third district 351,3d 92,94, (3rd circuit 2003). The undersigned has argued this point to no avail as judge Land dismissed Cook v Good claiming that the case is moot due to the fact that the deployment orders for Major Cook were revoked. In the second case Rhodes v MacDonald judge Land has dismissed the whole case 2 days after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed without giving the undersigned as much as 10 days provided by local rules to respond to the motion, and completely disregarding the whole 54 pages of pleading on all the points, while the undersigned precisely argued that there is a need for Declaratory relief and judicial determination as this is an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review. To add insult to injury judge Land has asserted $20,000 of sanctions against the undersigned in order to prevent her from arguing similar cases and in order to endanger her license and livelihood. The assistant US attorneys in this case have submitted Land’s order as some type of ruling authority for this case, and it became a lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs. While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.
1. Second important ruling in Berg is the fact that judge Sloviter brings forward Robinson v McCain 567 F Supp 2d at 1147. Judge Sloviter agrees with the findings in Robinson in that during the election the case is unripe, meaning there is no injury until the candidate takes office. Logical conclusion will be that the undersigned counsel was correct in bringing the current case on the inauguration day as it would be unripe previously and there was no fault of counsel, no latches.
Additionally, the undersigned brought prior to the election Writ of Mandamus on behalf of the presidential candidate Ambassador Keyes and on behalf of the Vice Presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot against the secretary of state of California Deborah Bowen.
Wherefore the undersigned prays that the court take the Judicial notice of the Third Circuit court of appeals ruling in Berg v Obama et al in conjunction with the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.
UNQUOTE
Notes:
Orly, please note that Judge Dolores Sloviter is not a “he.”
How in heaven is Roe v. Wade relevant?
A “lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs”?
BIL, last two posts are a deliberate, intentional effort aimed at stretching the smile on your avatar so wide that it splits your face.
Second FFLEO, Thank-you Vince!
Buddha I’m glad your laughing; how are you feeling post hospitalization? I hope your boo boo’s are all better!
CEJ,
I’m good. Thanks for asking. I am 95% and hope to stay on the up if I can avoid the creeping crud everyone around me seems to have caught in the last week.
Get well soon, BIL, laughter is the best medicine.