Replies

>>>>The man was duly served back in January prior to his swearing in

Actually, that isn't true. He was served February 10. The case was back dated.

Actual thread when service happened: White House Refused to be Served Pleadings

05/18/2009: PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by plaintiffs upon Barack H Obama served on 2/10/2009, answer due 3/2/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by not indicated statute, upon mail clerk at Department of Justice. Due Dilligence declaration none. Original Summons not returned. (twdb) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

The actual document: Obama v. Keyes It is dated at the bottom of this document as January 19.

Open it and look for yourself. Then check the document properties. It shows January 26th as the initial creation.

>>>>The man was duly served back in January prior to his swearing in Actually, that isn't true. He was served February 10. The case was back dated. Actual thread when service happened: White House Refused to be Served Pleadings From the Docket: 05/18/2009: PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by plaintiffs upon Barack H Obama served on 2/10/2009, answer due 3/2/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by not indicated statute, upon mail clerk at Department of Justice. Due Dilligence declaration none. Original Summons not returned. (twdb) (Entered: 05/19/2009) The actual document: Obama v. Keyes It is dated at the bottom of this document as January 19. Open it and look for yourself. Then check the document properties. It shows January 26th as the initial creation.

I think what that package of documents says is that he wasn't in fact served until February. Point of the argument was to get him served before he because President because if you don't get him served until after he is President, the rules about what you can force him to do in response are different.

Service of Process is a legal act--you have a statute which says "here is how you serve process on this person"--question is when you did the acts that comply. Lawyers and process servers then file the piece of paper--but that is why you have arguments including this one--argument is that the legal act that was done wasn't sufficient.

In this case, that is what the judge held. Reason why is best set out in the early WND article--the lawyer didn't get the process server to do it in a manner which complied with the statute.