This case is B DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES, 2009 CA 005391, available @ https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/

RUFA is smoking something if they think that they won default -- given that the court issued an order DENYING default on the same day that it dismissed the case.

As for adding this to the Birther Scorecard, while it may have some of the same characters involved, I can't see that it's a case challenging Obama's or McCain's eligibility for the Presidency, so I don't think that it belongs on the BIRTHER scorecard. Maybe another scorecard of crazy cases filed by people-who-happen-to-be-birthers, but ...

I see both cases at the link and that they were dismissed. Poor Judge Holeman got stuck with both of them. Why is Dale listed as "DALE; CLASS, RODNEY " in the Buess case?

He has literacy issues, here's how he headed his initial pleading in the other case -

It went downhill rapidly from there, causing Judge Holeman to say in his dismissal -

Tes
I thought that the cases might be marginal for your list but seeing as how that Sovereign Citizen, Jury Expert and Constitutional Scholar Carl Swenson was involved I thought I might give it a go. His main aim in life is to get rid of the usurper and as the court system is failing him I think he is heading towards the idea of another revolution.
Regards ..........Dick

Scorecard has been updated:
1. Added American Grand Jury/NY – Rejected by Court. (Changes score to 0-57.)
2. Added footnote re: additional AGJ presentments:

LeonardApple located another case filed in Alabama State Court (in December 2008; dismissed January 2009).

Chart has been updated to reflect Sorenson v. Riley, and to add one of Paul Mitchell's many filings (because 3rd Circuit issued ruling on it).

The first thing that struck me when I read Harold Sorensen detail his lawsuit in the comments at Donofrio's NBC* site, was that it was the same complaint as the now infamous Ankeny v Daniels. Sorenson filed just 5 days before Ankeny, it looked a lot like there could be some connection between the cases.

A little bit of digging turned up a reference from Phil @RSoL -
Two Hoosiers File Suit; Talk of Other Suits Filed this MonthI've highlighted Alabama because that seems to be a reference to Sorensen v Riley.

What this should mean is that somewhere out there are three cases not yet on the scorecard. If they follow the pattern of Ankeny and Sorensen they would have been filed in a state court against the state governor; in Georgia against Perdue, in Michigan against Granholm, and in Illinois against Blagojevich.

I've looked but failed so far, fair to say though I'm not the best searcher, it was actually Tes who turned up all the important details of Sorensen. Anyone fancy a birther suit hunt?

*penultimate comment on the page

We do have a Michigan case filed in December 2008 - but it was filed in federal court, and against Obama, not Granholm: Neely v. Obama, No. 2:08-cv-1523, slip copy (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2009) (dismissing case challenging Obama's eligibility).

Here's one of the Michiganders boasting about their filling in Ingham County ...


http://www.cruzweb.net/2008/12/09/following-suit/

See? That was no false modesty. Nice work.

The case is Stumpo v The Governor of the State of Michigan, et al.

It went to appeal (have not checked the lower court decision yet), but here is a link to the appeals court decision of dismissal.



I've not checked to see if this is on Tes' list and am not sure if it should be or not.

Apparently this is not Stumpo's first visit to the courts...he doesn't like paying taxes nor the 16th Amendment.

Reference to the Georgia case ... (and the immediate dismissal) ... and a to Erick Erickson

Bryan Terry, Sr. filed suit in Fulton County Superior Court, demanding Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel investigate claims that Sen. Barack Obama was neither born in the U.S., nor is he U.S. citizen, therefore he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President.

“Failing to officially and publically [sic] vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.”

-Atlanta resident Bryan T. Terry, Sr., in a memorandum to Fulton County Superior Court.

“. . . there is no basis for this court to issue an injunction or a mandamus or other relief against the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs’ claims are, there, HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

-An October 24, 2008 order by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter in response to Terry’s claim.

“Way to waste your freaking time and my email storage space.”

-Conservative Georgia blogger Erick Erickson, in an October 27 post on Peach Pundit mocking Terry and others who are trying to get him to publicly support their claims.


http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshl ... ack-obama/

Terry v Handel is already on the scorecard. I'm fairly sure it's not the Georgia case mentioned at RSoL.

Awesome - thanx - am on it .

(Tes does have Terry - GA on her list) ...

I sat through Ankeny and remember him mentioning the IL name ... but drawing a blank at the moment.

Thanks for jogging my memory though

hmmm - after you mentioned this I was pretty sure that Terry was the name Ankeny mentioned ... but I may have just been remembering it from this thread. At least I remembered 1 of the 3 correctly (better than I usually do with names)

Terry might be the Georgia case, but I've got two reasons to be doubtful -

1. Ankeny, Sorensen and Stumpo all seem to be based on the same theory, that a US Senator can't appear on the ballot because that makes them Head Elector, and Senators can't be Electors. Terry is a more normal 'show us the birth certificate' kind of case.

2. Terry was filed quite some time before the other three cases, which were all filed within a few days of each other.

Chart has been updated to add Stumpo v. Granholm, No. 08-140-MM (Mich. Dist. Ct. (30th) Mar. 31, 2009), appeal dismissed, No. 291681, slip copy (Mich. App. Ct. Jun. 3, 2009), recons. denied, slip copy (Oct. 1, 2009); (and to make a few other adjustments/additions/corrections).

Score is now 0-60 (counting cases - score much higher if count all rulings).

Additionally, have added - just bc I'm a geek - a "Birther Case String Cite" document (see sig). This is the type of thing that could go in a brief responding to a birther claim, to show the court just how many other courts have rejected birther suits. The parentheticals (short statements after each case citation) could be adjusted to address particular issues (e.g., to explain which cases were dismissed for standing, which cases were dismissed on the merits, etc.) And, I took a few liberties with the Blue Book (e.g., keeping slip copy even where case is now officially reported, to add links for folks w/o access to Westlaw/official reports, listing cases alphabetically by circuit/state rather than reverse chron, etc.). However, I just wanted to see what one would look like - so I did it. So, am sharing it

Thanks, Tes. Great work.

Looks like the honeymoon is over.

Awesome work, Tes. This would be a handy tool for any lawyer to use in a real case where he/she has to deal with the headache of a frivolous birther suit.

haha. No, he's just in Florida, and I don't ... sleep well when he's traveling, so had a couple late nights to work on it.

/threadjack

Tes, I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of posting the string cite on Scribd as well.

Great work.

great - thanx!

That is a thing of beauty.

Scorecard has been updated to add explanations in the defense column to address continuing confusion regarding this issue. I added explanations in each cell about why Obama attorneys did not defend the case. E.g.,
-- Gov defended
-- Ct dismissed sua sponte
-- Obama not a defendant

So - out of 60 cases, Obama's attorneys defended 3 and the Gov defended 7.
In the rest of the cases, either Obama was not named as a defendant (e.g., state suits against SoS), or the Court dismissed the case sua sponte before any defendant made an appearance.