If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
OR SHOULD IT BE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 29, 2011) — Two lawsuits have been filed by the Liberty Legal Foundation which question the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to serve as president and therefore have his name included on the ballot for the 2012 presidential election.
In a press release of October 26, 2011, Irion wrote, “Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election.” Irion stated that anyone could join the class action lawsuit. More information on the filings is here.
The lawsuits do not question Obama’s birthplace but focus on his lack of a U.S.-citizen father. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that there “was no doubt” that a person born on U.S. soil to two U.S.-citizen parents was considered a “natural born Citizen.”
The lack of a U.S.-citizen father for a presidential candidate has been questioned before the 2008 presidential election.
A “Class Action Fairness Act” was passed in 2005 which provided for “greater federal scrutiny” of attorneys’ fees.
Atty. Orly Taitz stated on her blog that a class action lawsuit requires the certification of a judge in order to proceed. She contacted Irion after he announced the filing of the two lawsuits, stating, in part, “You should be joining me in suing Obama for fraudulent use of a Connecticut Social security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him and use of a computer generated forgery instead of a valid birth certificate.”
Taitz has requested inspection of Obama’s original birth certificate allegedly held by the Hawaii Department of Health, and based on the statements of several private investigators and other research, has concluded that Obama is using a social security number which was not assigned to him. She provided oral argument in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2, 2011 and provided a supplemental brief on May 16 on behalf of 40 plaintiffs requesting discovery to determine Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.
Taitz had expressed a question to The Post & Email as to whether or not the Liberty Legal Foundation complaints had been made public via PACER, the federal court online cataloging system. The Post & Email asked Atty. Irion that question, to which he responded, “The Federal complaint is on Pacer. The Tennessee courts don’t have electronic filing yet. The defendants have not been served yet. We plan to draft and file motions for preliminary injunction and serve the motions with the complaints.”
PACER is not a free service, and The Post & Email has not yet opened an account.
Irion maintains that presidential candidate John Dummett has standing to sue the Democratic National Committee, but Taitz maintains that Dummett is not yet the Republican nominee and therefore does not have standing.
The Liberty Legal federal complaint can be read here, and the state complaint, filed in Shelby County, TN, is here. In regard to previous lawsuits filed to determine Obama’s eligibility, Liberty Legal states:
Liberty Legal Foundation respects all the legal efforts to date to address Obama’s eligibility. For those legal challenges that are still ongoing, we pray for their success. In preparing the following legal strategy, we learned a great deal from those valiant efforts.
The issue of “standing” is then discussed:
Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. We preempt the Defendants’ standing defense by having a class of plaintiffs that are candidates for the Presidency, including independent candidates that will be a part of the general election. Any candidate running in this election will be less likely to win if Obama appears on the ballot. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. It is the harm of lowering a candidate’s chance of winning. The speculative nature of the candidate winning an election is irrelevant to this argument. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections. In other words, standing does not require that a plaintiff be in exactly the same position as a defendant. All they must show is harm that is particular to them and is not speculative. We have overcome this initial hurdle.
Irion has responded to Taitz’s criticism via a letter which states, in part:
I was frustrated to read Orly Taitz’s blog criticizing our Class Action against the Democratic Party. I applaud all efforts to get to the truth of this issue and would never publicly discourage anyone working toward the same goals, as she did. It is highly counterproductive for those seeking the same outcome to disagree publicly over details, however I must correct the misrepresentations she made regarding our action and our Plaintiffs. Orly’s message reflects that she did not read the complaints that we filed. Her message reflects her assumptions as opposed to what we are actually doing…
As a newspaper and not a blog, The Post & Email takes no position on the legal questions and analyses provided by each attorney on this matter. Rather, we present the facts as they appear and continue to seek the truth about Obama’s background, constitutional eligibility, and whether or not he has committed treason against the United States of America.