HOWEVER, ATTORNEY “PLEASANTLY SURPRISED” BY “POSITIVE STATEMENTS”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 23, 2012) — On April 13, 2012, the United States District Court in Memphis, TN denied the plaintiffs’ request to remand a case challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to a state court. Plaintiffs in the case are Republican Presidential Candidate John Dummett; Creg Maroney; and Leonard Volodarsky represented by Atty. Van Irion of Knoxville, TN.
Irion, a business and constitutional attorney, is co-founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, whose stated mission is “restoring our Constitution, protecting our basic rights against government intrusion, and reforming our courts.”
Irion has filed two lawsuits against the National Democratic Party in Arizona and Tennessee, respectively, enjoining them from certifying Barack Hussein Obama as constitutionally eligible to run for president. Irion is not concerned about where Obama was born or the controversy surrounding his long-form birth certificate released to the public nearly one year ago, but rather, contends that Obama cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” because of his claimed foreign-citizen father.
An eligibility challenge filed against Obama in Georgia was argued by Irion on January 26 based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett, which stated that “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Following oral argument from Irion and two other attorneys, Judge Michael Malihi ruled that evidence presented of an invalid social security number and forged documents was not compelling, but that Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii was sufficient to consider him a “natural born Citizen” and recommended to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s name be included on the ballot.
On March 1, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse revealed the results of their six-month-long investigation into Obama’s long-form birth certificate by stating that there was probable cause to believe that it was a “computer-generated forgery.” The same conclusion was reached regarding Obama’s Selective Service registration card, of which The Post & Email was sent a copy in 2010.
The Tennessee case, filed in state court in Shelby County, was moved to federal court in February “on the basis of federal jurisdiction question” (p. 2). Irion’s First Amended Complaint had claimed that Obama does not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution (p. 6) and that the social security number he is using is invalid.
Irion filed an election complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law commission last November which stated, in part:
It is uncontested that Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. This fact is supported by Mr. Obama’s own statements, including a book written by Mr. Obama, and a birth certificate asserted by Mr. Obama to be his own.
Page 7 of federal Judge S. Thomas Anderson’s decision to retain the Tennessee case in federal court reads, in part:
…it is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are “actually disputed and substantial.”…It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor…the court holds that the federal issue is substantial…the Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial…
Mr. Dummett had discussed the Tennessee case, among others in which he is a plaintiff, with The Post & Email on April 14, 2012. His reaction to the ruling was, “Here is the good news. The quotes that I sent you were the quotes that the court included in the denial to remand our case back to the State court. Way back in December of 2011 when I filed the first ballot challenges using the strategy I came up with the Federal courts decided to move the case from the State court to the federal court. My attorney immediately filed a suit to remand the case back to the State court. We were denied this request. However in their opinion the court acknowledged that the issues I have brought up are substantive and vital. In other words the court is not going to dismiss our case but hear the case.”
The Post & Email asked Atty. Irion, “Did the decision surprise you?” and he responded, “No, I was not surprised by the ruling, but I was pleasantly surprised by the positive statements of the court within the ruling.”
We then asked, “What would have been the advantage, in your mind, of keeping the case in state court?” His response was, “Much faster rulings, much more responsive court. In TN litigants have much more control over the litigation. The best example is that in State court any party can set a hearing. Every court hears motions every week. In other words, in state court I pick a date and notify the other parties and the court, then I show up. In Federal court the parties have absolutely no control over when or if a hearing is held and have no ability to force the court to rule on a motion, ever.“