If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Does justice entail such restrictions as "standing?"

(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.

Liberty Legal has also filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the health care bill signed by Obama last year is unconstitutional.  A summary of motions in the case is here.

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.


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. ‘Standing’,. ‘jurisdiction’ blah blah blah, are just excuses behind which they hide. They are all scared to death or are obama protectors.
    For this lawsuit, I won’t be surprised that the judges will rule under the excuses that Mr. Dummett is not the R nominee yet, so he is not running against obama yet, therefore he is not suffering any harm from obama’s name being on the ballot. In other words, they will rule that until Mr. Dummett is running head to head with obama in the general election, Mr. Drummett cannot establish any ‘harm’ from obama-name-on-the-ballot.
    THIS ‘DELAY’ TACTIC WILL MAKE SURE o’s name IS PLACED on ballot of all 50 states!
    In my humble opinion – lawsuit is useless because there is NO judge brave or honest enough to challenge the power that be by ruling on the merits.
    We the people must descend upon the states’ s SOS to ‘object’ to the placement of o’s name on the ballot without any proof of his constitutional eligibility. If they say they base their action on DNC’s explicit or implicit, sworn statement that o is constitutionally eligibile, then We can object to that ‘basis’ – where is DNC’s proof that obama meets the requirement set forth in the constitution and in DNC’s own organization rule? The digital bc is NOT proof!

  2. I am not an attorney, but here is common sense questions/observation –
    we sue DNC because we have reasons to believe it misrepresents to the states and to all US citizens obama’s constitutional elig to be the president. Any US citizen can sue any private entity who is misrepresenting a fact resulting in ‘harm’ to said citizens (namely, we the citizens are deceived into voting for an ineligible candidate!)
    So why is ‘standing’ an issue?
    All we need to do is ask the court to clarify what are the constitutional requirement according to the founders’ intent (specifically what is a natural born citizen), and, to order the DNC to explain/show the basis on which it makes its representation (that o meets the consitituional requirement as well as its own organizational rule!)
    When DNC cannot explain/show its ‘basis’ (supported by genuine authenticated document), we can then stop the state’s SOS from placing the o name on the ballot.
    No need to argue about ‘standing’. And ‘harm’ to the US citizens is apparent.
    But of course, the courts and DNC can drag their feet until it is too late – o’s name is on the ballot of all 50 states.

  3. Can LLF file a lawsuit against a theoretical possibility that might happen in the future but hasn’t actually happened yet?

    The Democratic Party has not yet selected its presidential nominee for 2012. Obama will probably be the Democratic nominee, but at this point, no one can say for sure. Anything can happen between now and 2012. So my question is, isn’t LLF “jumping the gun” and acting prematurely by filing a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the DNC from certifying its presidential nominee, when the DNC hasn’t yet selected a presidential nominee?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense for a Democratic primary candidate — Randall Terry or Cody Judy — to challenge the eligibility of fellow Democratic primary candidate, Barack Obama, or, for Republican primary candidate, John Dummett, to challenge the eligibility of fellow Republican primary candidate, Andy Martin?

    In my opinion, both Martin and Obama are ineligible to serve as President, since both men were born of a non-US-citizen father. Both are registered primary presidential candidates in their respective parties. Their presence on the primary ballot takes votes away from, and thereby causes actual harm to, the other primary candidates. So there does not appear to be any ripeness and/or standing issues with a primary presidential candidate challenging the eligibility of another primary presidential candidate running in the same primary.

    So, why would we file a lawsuit challenging the theoretical future possibility of Obama’s Democratic nomination, when we could, right now, file a lawsuit challenging a present actuality — the registered primary presidential candidacy of two presumably ineligible candidates?

  4. Raymond Kraft said it best when it comes to Standing:

    1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.

    2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.

    3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.

    4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment “to petition the government for redress of grievances.” If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.


    I would like to add that since the government is corrupt, why should we trust the Judges?

  5. This is all so true.Any lawyer or judge who utter the words “no standing” should be
    held in contempt of the Constitution of the United States.

    Merit alone can easily enough determine the validity of a case.

  6. An article on standing you should check out is by Dr. Edwin Vieira or Dr. Constitution as I call him.


    I blame this problem on the media, which is run by banksters and the military (Operation Mockingbird) and the government school system and the teacher’s unions for NOT TEACHING the real Constitution nor about liberty, freedom and the free market capitalist system.


  7. WE THE PEOPLE. The first three words of the PREAMBLE. Often forgotten about. But WE THE PEOPLE are the three most powerful words of the U.S. Constitution. Those three words put people first before the government, a government that has been established by the consent of WE THE PEOPLE!

    WE THE PEOPLE are made up of individual citizens male and female. It was a group of people who created this Constitution. If this government fails to serve WE THE PEOPLE, then it is WE THE PEOPLE who are duty bound to cast away a useless traitoristic government, only to install a more useful government that respects WE THE PEOPLE and the U.S. Constitution.

    WE THE PEOPLE are citizens of the United States of America who are the ultimate guardians of the Constitution. All individual citizens who are the essential make up of WE THE PEOPLE have standing to sound the alarm whenever a citizen sees a threat to the U.S. Constitution like we have today with this violation of Article 2 Section 1 and the FOUNDING FATHERS Natural Born Citizen clause.

    When the U.S. Constitution is being violated by WE THE PEOPLE’s very own government WE THE PEOPLE as a group or as an individual are all greatly harmed and therefore as a group or as an individual….SHALL HAVE STANDING TO SEEK JUSTICE IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!


  8. To deprive a citizen of standing where the issue at hand is what law is controlling during presidential elections, constitutional law, federal law or state law, presidential and vice presidential, plus as amended 20+25th amendments being controlling is not legitimate. Qualifications being constitutional law, it is a violation of the concept of constitutional law preempting all other law including federal or state and local election laws. Any individual exercising the right to vote at the same time exercises the right to uphold the constitution. His constitutional standing is inherent in and commensurate with the right to vote. It is dishonest to state a right to vote does not entitle one to seek enforcement of that right as constitutionally controlled. If it weren’t the case then you could be asked to cast a ballot for unstated choices and be told you were allowed to vote which is all that is guaranteed.