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
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.
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.
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)
A delicious feast and celebration at that. Please pass the tooth picks.
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.”
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
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/
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
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?
seamus–
Don’t go around giving bat shit a bad name. Guano’s good stuff!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, it’s true all right. I still have the suitcase:
http://www.craftychica.com/blogs/projects/uploaded_images/suitcase-791041.jpg
empire cookie, yours is one of the funniest conspiracy stories I’ve ever read, unless it’s really true.
“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.