The title of the E.O. is:
"Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust "
I'm reading that as 'Federal Contractor Employee' AND 'Individuals in Positions of Public Trust' which would include POTUS. Isn't POTUS in a position of public trust? I believe the answer would be yes. The E.O. doesn't appear to be 100% exclusive to Contractor employee's.
In addition, why would Dr. Orly Taitz submit this lawsuit with plaintiffs Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson. Are those people ignorant as to what the E.O. pertains to?
I included a link to the EO, and it says nothing about elected officials. It covers contractors and the excepted service only. A court will not invent language that is not there, and as conservatives we don't want them to.
Public trust postions, as cited in the EO, ". . . involve policy making, major program responsibility, public safety and health, law enforcement duties, fiduciary responsibilities or other duties demanding a significant degree of public trust, and positions involving access to or operation or control of financial records, with a significant risk for causing damage or realizing personal gain." 5 CFR Part 731
While you would think this covers the President, again, the plain language of the EO doesn't cover the President.
In addition, why would Dr. Orly Taitz submit this lawsuit with plaintiffs Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson. Are those people ignorant as to what the E.O. pertains to?
Yes. As far as the lawyers go, they are grasping at straws; and Alan Keyes is nuts.