[SeaHawkFan]

Not binding per se. But it is precedent that can by used to support a decision. If the defense is going to use it to support their side then Taitz is entitled to a chance to refute it.

I is not a precedent, either. It was only a U.S. District Court decision and IS NOT a precedent. Even if that decision was appealed and upheld byt the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, it would not be binding on Carter since it is in another circuit.

Aside from that, the Rhodes case may have little or no relevance to the case in CA.

If there was a precendent case in the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS, that would be a different matter.

[Non-Sequitur]

If there was a precendent case in the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS, that would be a different matter.

If that is true then why is Gary Kreep referencing Hollister v. McCain, a New Hampshire district court case, as justification for his claim that Keyes has standing because he was a presidential candidate?

[OldDeckHand]

"I is not a precedent, either."

Incorrect. It's persuasive precedent sometimes called persuasive authority by attorneys, not binding precedent. If this had been a 9th Circuit, or Supreme Court decision, then it would have been binding precedent.