Posted on 08/08/2009 8:46:12 AM PDT by pissant
The case pending in U.S. District Court in Orange County, California, on the subject of President Obama’s qualifications, has changed its lead plaintiff. Formerly, the case was known as Alan Keyes v Barack Obama. Keyes is still a co-plaintiff, but the lead plaintiff is now Pamela Barnett, an officer of the U.S. military, so the case will in the future be called Barnett v Obama. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
(Excerpt) Read more at ballot-access.org ...
After 54 views, this thread is still not getting any posts......
After 54 views, this thread is still not getting any posts......
Okay I give..... What is there to post about as this is only a change in the lead plaintiff?
Wow. They named a new primary plainiff.
We’re doomed.
DOOMED, I say.
Glad things are moving along. Let justice roll like a mighty ocean! Thanks, pissant, for keeping us current.
Thanks for this link.
A comment to the original post indicates Orly may be getting some well needed litigation assistance:
“Wait to Monday, August 10th and the major changes will happen again. Markham Robinson and Wiley Drake will be in the case with new attorneys.”
I haven't looked at the pleadings recently. However my initial reaction was that Keyes' case is based on his factual standing as someone else who was deprived of rights in connection with the contest for the office--that worked as long as the case gets started before the contest is over. But that service was dismissed so now what Keyes has is an argument that the guy improperly holds the office--where is the standing?
On the other hand, I take it as a given that any active duty officer who has been ordered to do anything has standing to complain. I don't see those pleadings yet so we don't know what she was ordered to do that she is complaining about--presumably we find that out Monday.
If she hasn't got an order, she still has the argument that she is directly prejudiced by the fact that there is no Commanding Officer in charge under the constitution although I think that is a more difficult case to make--depending on her duty status, her complaints about treaties and avoidance of tort civil claims may just be viewed as "what if" claims.
Maybe it isn't just any military officer who could complain but one who has facts--maybe she does.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
PING!
I’m going to rule this strategy by Orly Taitz as a homerun! Now they have double the standing (double standing)- a military officer and a candidate.
Is there a change of counsel in this case ? I often wonder how long the resources can hold out with Orly and Keyes incurring continual expenses for travel and research. As far as I know, their only ongoing source of funding is from donations and unfortunately, when their case suffers a setback or their evidence is debunked, it could very well have an adverse impact on the generosity of their supporters.
Also, wasn’t there an announcement about one month ago that Atty. Stephen Pidgeon from WA was to become Orly’s new partner ? Atty. Pidgeon is well-versed in the entire Obama scandal and, as an experienced articulator, would be an excellent representative for TV and radio interviews.
Lastly, I read last week that Atty. Mario Apuzzo filed a motion disputing an objection with respect to the “standing” in his case by stating that the word “standing” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
Oh my. Keyes had standing since he was on the ballot against Obama. This does not bode well that the entire direction of Orly’s case has been changed. Now, standing will be denied whereas before Keyes obviously had standing.
Thanks for the info.
Keyes is still a plaintiff
PING! FYI, forwarded from message #10.
“Is there a change of counsel in this case ? I often wonder how long the resources can hold out with Orly and Keyes incurring continual expenses for travel and research. As far as I know, their only ongoing source of funding is from donations and unfortunately, when their case suffers a setback or their evidence is debunked, it could very well have an adverse impact on the generosity of their supporters.
Also, wasn’t there an announcement about one month ago that Atty. Stephen Pidgeon from WA was to become Orly’s new partner ? Atty. Pidgeon is well-versed in the entire Obama scandal and, as an experienced articulator, would be an excellent representative for TV and radio interviews.
Lastly, I read last week that Atty. Mario Apuzzo filed a motion disputing an objection with respect to the “standing” in his case by stating that the word “standing” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.”
If Obama is NOT the commander in chief, then it would seem to me that ANY order -- orders being based on "chain of command" -- would be suspect.
Now an officer may get orders that are life changing and even life threatening -- at ANY time.
Now, of course, the officer doesn't just take orders from anyone.
The officer MUST have confedence... he MUST be CERTAIN that he's following legitimate orders... orders that are coming from one who has the authority to GIVE the order.
So how can an officer with reasonable doubts about the legitimacy of his commander-in-chief -- and, therefor, doubts as to the legitimacy of ANY orders he may receive from "higher ups" via the commander-in-chief -- be expected to properly serve his Country: under such an umbra of uncertainty?
STE=Q
NOTE: he = he/she, etc.
I think that's all correct. My post may have been a little misleading.
My point about "if she hasn't got an order" is that she may need some order to complain directly about to have standing.
But the rest of your commentary is where we think Orly may have screwed up in Cook--maybe she should have drafted her pleading to deal with not only the order to deploy but other orders. Although that would leave it open to the Court to say that isn't a direct impact but rather a "what if"--come back and see us when it happens.
The other reason the prayer for relief in Cook may have been narrower is because it was directed to a deployment order--in the battlefield environment, a bunch of other law comes into affect which operates on a person acting under orders from a command authority. So with respect to Cook, counsel could say well not only do I not have a Commander in Chief with pants who can issue orders I have to follow, I also suffer direct impact because I don't have protection of these treaties like Geneva Convention and other stuff in a life threatening environment either.
Well, "spiting on the sidewalk" does not "appear" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, either!
Anyway, I'm sure his argument is more layered than that... and look forward to Apuzzo's explanations as to how the constitution is mute on the question of standing... and why it matters?
And if the Constitution IS mute on "standing" does that mean that the standing rule is unconstitutional?
If Apuzzo is arguing that the "standing" rule is unconstitutional, I wonder what portions of the Constitution he will be citing in support of his supposition?
STE=Q
This case, Barnett/Keyes vs. Obama is looking stronger and stronger. The Judge has already stated it will be heard on the merits.
It provides some difficult defense for Obama’s team.
PING!
This is a good one....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.