S o S

Way back in February 2009, in their Opposition to Respondents’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Keyes v. Bowen, Attorneys Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep cited this case – TDP v. RPT, 459 F3d 582 (2006) – which azgo found and sent to me for review a full year later, in February 2010. (See comments, here.) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2186569/posts)

Understand what this means. These attorneys were bringing a case in state court in CA (Superior Court) and using a federal case as an authority, so as to bolster their case. This federal case – TDP v. RPT – stands for the proposition that while TX law grants standing to both political party Chairs (associational standing) AND candidates (individual standing) to challenge eligibility of candidates for federal offices to have their names printed on the ballot; this does not give them the right to alter the Qualifications Clause of the Constitution.

I cannot imagine the emotional response of those of you who have contributed financially to the escapades of Attorneys Taitz and Kreep on learning these heavily subsidized lawyers have failed to take advantage of the legal holdings they cite in their patently infirm ‘eligibility’ state case, in CA; to bring an arguably sound ‘eligibility’ case, in the Fifth Circuit (federal court) in Texas. Please, let me know what they say, when you ask them.

I feel your pain.

I feel Kreep (aptly named) is a 5th columnist for the other team. Never did know what the heck the story is with Orly. Her pleadings are like "Wild and Crazy Guy" scripts from the old SNL.

Bottom line: by handing cheap victories to Team Obama they have succeeded in doing three things:
(1) Delayed resolution of this whole morbid affair until our Fearlessly Ineligible Leader is safely out of office, by bringing actions in courts where they TRULY HAD NO STANDING. Two wasted years.
(2) Completely confusing the "Place of Birth and Birth Certificate Issue" with the "Natural Born Citizen" qualification demanded by Article II, allowing Team Obama to replace the words "Natural Born," with "Native Born," in effect writing themselves a Constitutional Amendment.
(3)Allowing Team Obama to give everyone concerned with the Constitutional Issues a coat of idiot-paint that is going to be very hard to get off.

“I feel your pain.” “Allowing Team Obama to give everyone concerned with the Constitutional Issues a coat of idiot-paint that is going to be very hard to get off.”

Thank you; empathy helps. In the beginning, I often tried to counter the infirm pleadings coming from that legal camp, by pointing out the problems and explaining rational solutions. Posters shot me down with cries that I was a ‘Bot’ or, that it didn’t matter if they were wrong because they were calling attention to the ‘cause.’ I pleaded with people, don’t encourage this insanity; people will discount the message along with the messengers. But not enough people listened. And, as you point out, in the year(s) since this began, even those of us who know what we are talking about have trouble getting heard. However, it’s not too late to act. Individuals just need to educate themselves about the laws in their states before they - and I will help them - can fix the problems in their electoral process.

The case cited could resolve the standing issue when brought in this federal jurisdiction based on both state (eligibility determination) and federal (Article II Qualifications Clause)grounds; or in the state court of TX. (Remember, the laws in TX already require only eligible candidates can get their names printed on the ballot; and give the political party the right to determine a candidate’s eligibility for office.)

The above is unlikely since Barack Obama is not named as the defendant in “Keyes v Bowen” and John McCain/Sarah Palin (who could possibly demonstrate injury IN FACT as the only other persons to receive electoral votes) are not plaintiffs.

There are three requirements for article III standing:
(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;

(2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and

(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.

Thus far 54 Obama eligibility suits have been disnussed in state and federal courts across the nation, almost always the grounds for dismissal has been lack of standing meaning hte wrong persons bringing suit, persons who cannot demonstrate “injury in fatt”. McCain-Palin campaign could demonstrate injury in fact but they haven’t sued.

The case cited touched on both state and federal causes of action. The TDP filed the case in state court; the RPT removed this to federal court. (From the case cited: “The TDP filed this suit in Texas state court on June 8, 2006, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The RPT removed the case to federal court, where on June 26, 2006, the court held a hearing on the merits.”) The federal court ruled on issues of both TX state law AND federal Constitutional law. Under the state law of TX, under the specific conditions mentioned, both the RPT AND candidates for POTUS from the RPT have standing to challenge a candidate who is ineligible to appear on the ballot. (Because of the concomitant issue of Constitutional qualifications, the TDP could have brought this case in federal court instead of state court, in the first place.)

I see. In any event, wouldn’t it be a good thing if McCain-Palin and the National Republican Party had filed amicus briefs in support of this action regardless of jurisdictional issues?

The Federal judiciary is not immune to political pressures or other influences, just like politicians, despite their lifetime bench appointments. We only need 1 case to get to trial on the merits to blow it wide open Obot.

If people want to avoid personal responsibility for ‘outing’ BO by continuing to fund any lawyer promising to bring a case to court, now we know, there is a way, at least in TX, to fashion a viable case. But what is preventing citizens from taking control of their own lives by 1) exploring the laws in their states to determine whether they (through their legislators) have enacted laws requiring candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be eligible for the job; and 2) filing citizen complaints of election fraud with their elected state A’sG, against any member of the D Corporation or state D party who swore to state election officials BO was eligible for the job without ascertaining beforehand based on documentary evidence, this was true? Or, having filed such citizen complaints, from storming the state house to demand an investigation into these charges?

However many of the Obama eligibility cases dismissed for lack of standing have been state and local level cases. For example:
Ankeny v Daniels—Indiana state courts
Brockhousen v Andrade—Texas state courts
Broe v Reed—Washington state courts
Connerat v Browning— Florida small claims court
Donofrio v Wells—New Jersey state court
Ealey v Obama—Houston, Texas court
Keyes v Bowen—Superior Court of California
Marquis v Reed—Washington state courts
Martin v Lingle—Hawaii state courts
Neal v Brunner-Ohio state courts

However many of the Obama eligibility cases dismissed for lack of standing have been state and local level cases. For example:

It's more of a lack of political will by the states and federal courts than standing. "Standing" is a court created gate keeping tool to keep from hearing cases. If they want to grant standing or not they will find a way. The clown president that you support will not have a Dim Congress after November. When duh Dems lose Congress, the courts lack of will should subside and they may sprout a backbone.

It’s more of a lack of political will by the states and federal courts than standing. “Standing” is a court created gate keeping tool to keep from hearing cases. If they want to grant standing or not they will find a way. The clown president that you support will not have a Dim Congress after November. When duh Dems lose Congress, the courts lack of will should subside and they may sprout a backbone.

Time will tell, however at the state level there’s been no difference in courts rejecting Obama eligibility lawsuits in states that have Republican Governors, Republican Attorneys General and Republican control of the state legislature. For example, the Ankeny v Daniels lawsuit in Indiana that declared Obama to be natural born; Obama was defended by the Republican Attorney General of Indiana and in Hawaii, the Governor and the Attorney General are both Republicans. They have both refused to order the release of Obama’s birth certificate.

Meanwhile at the US Supreme Court, there is a five to four conservative majority who have now rejected eight different Obama eligibility lawsuits.

The courts often tend to function independently of legislatures due to separation of powers.

the Ankeny v Daniels lawsuit in Indiana that declared Obama to be natural born;

An obvious erroneous opinion on Indiana's part that has no bearing on the United States as a whole.

Meanwhile at the US Supreme Court, there is a five to four conservative majority who have now rejected eight different Obama eligibility lawsuits.

he courts often tend to function independently of legislatures due to separation of powers.

Independently? Not when it comes to Constitutional review. Is Obama a natural born citizen? The overwhelming evidence say otherwise.

And Obama is facing Quo Warranto action against him. An avenue of justice if it is brought to trial will end the Obama presidency.

An obvious erroneous opinion on Indiana’s part that has no bearing on the United States as a whole.

Meanwhile at the US Supreme Court, there is a five to four conservative majority who have now rejected eight different Obama eligibility lawsuits.

he courts often tend to function independently of legislatures due to separation of powers.

Independently? Not when it comes to Constitutional review. Is Obama a natural born citizen? The overwhelming evidence say otherwise.

And Obama is facing Quo Warranto action against him. An avenue of justice if it is brought to trial will end the Obama presidency.

As I said, “time will tell!” I will patiently wait for all of the legal procedures to play out just as I have watched the first 64 legal attempts play out.

Three legal hurdles face Quo Warranto: (1) it can only be initiated and heard in the US District Court for The District of Columbia, one of the most liberal Democrat dominated courts in the nation.
(2) quo warranto needs the approval of Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder or else (3) it needs the approval of another Obama appointee, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor in order to proceed.
Quo warranto can proceed without their approval if they should choose to allow it to be shifted to some other prosecutor. They won’t.

Meanwhile at the US Supreme Court, there is a five to four conservative majority who have now rejected eight different Obama eligibility lawsuits.

Not hearing a case by the Supreme Court has no relationship on future court action.

2) quo warranto needs the approval of Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder or else (3) it needs the approval of another Obama appointee, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor in order to proceed.

Nope, wrong again. A DC court can take action against Obama via quo warranto. See DC Quo Warranto statute §16-3501-§16-3503.

Quo warranto can proceed without their approval if they should choose to allow it to be shifted to some other prosecutor. They won’t.

More like you hope. A flunky like Holder is too politicized and who was appointed to protect Obama's backside, and answered above.

As I said, I’ll just be waiting to see what actually happens with the few pending eligibility cases.

Yes, political appointees like Eric Holder and Jeffrey Taylor are indeed politicized and for that reason alone neither Holder nor Taylor is likely to let a quo warranto action get out from under their direct control.

And every day that Obama is in office, more US Attorneys and more federal judges are becoming his appointees.

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.